THE SELF~CONCEPT 0E HARD-OF-HEARING ADULTS AS MEASURED BY THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL TECHNIQUE Thesis for the Degree of Pb. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Edward J. Hardick I964 rusgs LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certifg that the thesis entitled The Self-Concept of Hard-of-Hearing Adults as Measured by the Semantic Differential Technique I .. presented by Edward J. Hardick v I has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in SEeee‘h Date July 29, 1964 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT THE SELF-CONCEPT OF HARD-OF-HEARING ADULTS AS MEASURED BY THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL TECHNIQUE by Edward J. Hardick The purpose of this research was essentially two-fold. The first purpose was to investigate the practicality of utilizing the semantic differential approach in the development of an instrument for obtaining self-judgments and to determine the relevant dimensions along which selfejudgments are characteristically made. The second purpose was to evaluate and compare the self-concept and other self-related attitudes of the hard-of—hearing adult with those of normal hearing adults. Nine self or personality related concepts were each evaluated on fifty bipolar adjectival scales by a group of fifty-five college students. The judgments were quantified and subjected to factor analysis, employ- ing a principal axes solution followed by a varimax rotation. Each of the nine concepts was factor analyzed individually, and in addition, a factor analysis across all nine concepts was accomplished. The goals of the factor analytic studies were to determine the relevant orthogonal dimensions utilized by people to evaluate each concept and to determine the nature and extent of concept-scale interaction. The results of these studies indicated that any concept can be evaluated by means of a multifactor structure consisting of at least three rather well defined independent dimensions. The Universal factor-scale structure was chosen Edward J. Hardick to be utilized with each of the concepts in the subsequent study to determine whether the self-judgments of hard-of—hearing adults dif- fered from those having normal hearing. The three dimensions utilized were labeled Capability, Genuineness, and Toughness. The nine semantic differentials were then administered to 105 volunteer hard-of—hearing adults and to a control group of fifty-four volunteer normal hearing adults matched to the experimental group in terms of age, sex, and amount of formal education. The self-judgments were quantified and evaluated to determine whether: (1) the two groups differed from each other with respect to the concepts utilized; (2) age, sex, and amount of hearing loss were significant variables affecting responses; and (3) the judgments were reliably obtained and represented valid indices of self-feeling. The results of this study indicated that the Capability factor provided most of the statistically significant discriminations between the two groups of subjects. The ratings obtained from the hard-of- hearing adults were signifcantly different from the normal group on the Capability factor for four of the nine concepts. The results also inci- cated that the hard-of-hearing adults tended to place some pairs of concepts closer together in three-dimensional space than did their normal hearing counterparts. The results relative to the effect of sex, age, and amount of hearing loss on judgments within the hard-of-hearing group revealed that few significant differences were noted between the dichtotomized groups. The major findings were: (1) that hard-of-hearing adults do not differ in feelings of self-regard from normal hearing adults; (2) that Edward J. Hardick certain adjustments to reality reflecting the altered self-environmental relationship are required for satisfactory adjustment to the sensory handicap; (3) that the amount of hearing loss, in excess of that associated with a Social Adequacy Index of seventy-five, is not a variable affecting self-concept; (4) that hard-of-hearing women and people over sixty years of age feel more "genuine" than hard-of-hearing men and people less than sixty years of age; and, (5) that the semantic differential technique can reliably and validly be utilized to evaluate the self-concept of certain people. THE SELF-CONCEPT 0F HARD-OF-HEARING ADULTS AS MEASURED BY THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL TECHNIQUE By Edward J. Hardick A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speech 1964 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported in part by a pre-doctoral Rehabili- tation Research Fellowship from the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. Special gratitude is given to the staff of the Communications Research Center of Michigan State University and Malcolm McLean, in particular, for assistance in preparing the data for the computer. Recognition is also given to Herbert J. Oyer, Professor of Speech and Chairman of the Department of Speech, for the interest he displayed and the guidance he gave as academic and thesis adviser. Sincere gratitude is extended to my wife and children for their encouragement and patience. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . Chapter I O INTRODUflION O O O O O O O O O O 0 Purpose of the Study Importance of the Study Limitations of the Study Organization of the Report II. REVIEW OF PERTINENT LITERATURE . . . . . . Self-Concept Psychology of Hearing Loss The Semantic Differential Summary III. TEST CONSTRUCTION AND DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES . Development of a Measuring Instrument Choice of Concepts and Scales Data Collection Procedures Treatment of the Date Results of Factor Analysis The Test Instrument Study of Self-Concept Purpose Subjects Procedure Reliability Measurement Analysis of the Data IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . Differences in Self-Concept between Hard-of- Hearing and Normal Hearing Adults iii 37 Page Statistical Results Graphical Results Differences between the Hard-of-Hearing and Normal Hearing Groups in Inter-Concept Distances Effect of Age, Sex, and Amount of Hearing Loss on Self-Concept Judgments Instrument Reliability Concept Reliability Factor Stability Absolute Deviation Probability Statements Equivalent Forms Reliability Discussion Self-Concept of Hard-of—Hearing and Normal Hearing Adults Reliability and Validity V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER “S“RCH. O O O O O O O O O O O O 115 Summary Conclusions Recommendations for Further Research BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 APPENDICES..................123 iv 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Concept-Scale Format Employed in Factor Analysis Study . The Number of Subjects Participating in the Factor Analysis Study Summarized by Age and Sex. . . . . Summary of Factor Analysis Showing Highest Scales Loading on Isolated Factors (Universal Analysis-Overall Concepts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Factor Analysis Showing Highest Scales Loading on Isolated Factors (Concept 1 MYSELF) . . . . . . Summary of Factor Analysis Showing Highest Scales Loading on Isolated Factors (Concept 2 FRIENDS) . . . . . Summary of Factor Analysis Showing Highest Scales Loading on Isolated Factors (Concept 3 MY HAPPIEST SELF) . . . Summary of Factor Analysis Showing Highest Scales Loading on Isolated Factors (Concept 4 MYSELF WITH A HEARING LOSS) O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O 0 Summary of Factor Analysis Showing Highest Scales Loading on Isolated Factors (Concept 5 STRANGERS) . . . . . Summary of Factor Analysis Showing Highest Scales Loading on Isolated Factors (Concept 6 MYSELF WITH A HEARING AID) O O O O 0 O O O O I O O O O 0 Summary of Factor Analysis Showing Highest Scales Loading on Isolated Factors (Concept 7 MYSELF IN THE FUTURE). Summary of Factor Analysis Showing Highest Scales Loading on Isolated Factors (Concept 8 PEOPLE OF AUTHORITY) . . Summary of.Factor Analysis Showing Highest Scales Loading on Isolated Factors (Concept 9 MYSELF AND FAILURE) . Factors and Scales Chosen to be Employed with all Concepts. Summary of Hard-of-Hearing Group Participating in Self- Concept Study Indicating the Number of Subjects by Age, Sex, and Amount of Formal Education . . . . . . V Page 43 46 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 S9 61 6S Table 15. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Page Number of Hard-of—Hearing Subjects Utilizing a Hearing Aid as a Function of Amount of Hearing Loss Defined by Social Adequacy Index . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Swmmary of Normal Hearing Control Group Participating in Self-Concept Study Indicating the Number of Subjects by Age, Sex, and Amount of Formal Education. . . . . 66 The Scales of Each Factor Utilized to Determine Equivalent Forms Reliability with Coefficient Computed Between Form X and Form Y. . . . . . . . . . . 74 Median Rating on Each Factor of Each Concept Obtained from Matched Adult Hard-of-Hearing and Normal Hearing 79 SUbjeCts O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Summary of the Wilcoxon Tests Performed for Each Concept Testing the Hypothesis of no Difference Between the Hard-of-Hearing Group and the Normal Hearing Group . . 82 Summary of the Wilcoxon Tests Performed on Distances (D) Between Concepts for the Hard-of—Hearing Group and the Normal Hearing Group . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Summary Data for Mann Whitney U Test Performed to Deter- mine whether Self-Concept Differed as a Function of Sex, Amount of Hearing Loss, and Age . . . . . . . 93 Median Ratings on Concept 1 MYSELF for Each Factor as a Function of Age, Sex, and Amount of Hearing Loss . . 94 Concept Stability over Three Month Time Lapse for Thirty- two Hard-of-Hearing Adults . . . . . . . . . . 96 Factor Stability over Three Month Time Lapse for Thirty- Two Hard—of—Hearing Adults . . . . . . . . . . 99 Probability of Obtaining Given Deviations from Test to Retest . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Split-Half Reliability Coefficients for the Three Factors Across Nine Concepts. . . . . . . . . . 104 Summary Table for Testing the Hypothesis of no Difference Between Correlation Coefficients . . . . . . . . 105 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Placement of the Nine Concepts in Three-Dimensional Space by Fifty-Four Hard-of—Hearing Subjects . . . . 84 2. Placement of the Nine Concepts in Three-Dimensional Space by Fifty-Four Normal Hearing Subjects Matched to the Subjects Portrayed in Figure 1 . . . . . . 85 3. Placement of the Nine Concepts in Three-Dimensional Space by the Total Group of 105 Hard-of-Hearing Subjects from whom Self-Concept Judgments were Obtained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 vii Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES Page Factor Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Test Instrument Utilized to Measure Self-Concept. . . 150 Cover Letters Utilized to Acquaint Subjects with the Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Probability of Obtaining Given Deivations from Test to ReteSt e a e a e a e e o a o e o e 166 Equivalent Forms Reliability . . . . . . . . . 176 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The subcommittee on Hearing Problems in Adults of the American Speech and Hearing Association1 and the report of the Workshop on Identification of Researchable Vocational Rehabilitation Problems of the Deaf2 have pointed out the need for the study of the psychological problems of the hardcof-hearing and development of apprOXpriate test- ing devices for the purpose of expanding or modifying knowledge and rehabilitative procedures. Purpose of the Study The research was oriented around two main purposes. One of these purposes was to evaluate and compare the self-concept and other self-related attitudes of hard-of-hearing adults with normal hearing adults. The other purpose was to develop an instrument utiliz» ing the semantic differential3 technique to assess the attitudes of both 1R. Carhart (Chairman), ”IX. Report of Subcommittee on Hearing Problems in Adults," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, Mono~ graph Supplement 5 (September, 1959). 2”Workshop on Identification of Researchable Vocational Rehabili— tation Problems of the Deaf;’§merican Annals of the Deaf, 105 (4, 1960), pp. 335-370. ' 3C. E. Osgood, G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum,_Ihe Measurement of Meaning (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957). populations. Specifically, the following questions were posed: 1. Do hard-of—hearing adults, as a group, differ in their self-concept from normal hearing people of the same age, sex, and level of education? 2. Do hard-of-hearing adults differ from one another with respect to their self-concept as a function of age, sex, and amount of hearing loss? 3. Can the semantic differential technique be reliably and validly employed as a means of obtaining self and related attitudes? The ultimate goal, of which the studies presented here are but a beginning, is to develop a test instrument that can be employed to help determine the need for a counselling program and for evaluating counselling and therapy in the area of aural rehabilitation. The development of such a test is only the initial step in the refinement of an instrument of this nature. It is anticipated that many atti- tudes related to hearing loss could be measured best by test devices derived primarily for use with the hard-of-hearing and oriented toward their self-attitudes. Importance of the Study Many hard-of-hearing adults are seen each week in audiology clinics. Clinical services are rendered as necessary to aid in the rehabilitation.of these clients. Sometimes this means the recommen- dation of a hearing aid and/or auditory training, and/or speech- reading. The immediate goals of these programs are the improvement of communication skills. The common clinical procedure is to evaluate hearing first, and then follow with recommendations that may involve the use of a hearing aid and/or training leading to better utilization of auditory and visual clues. Generally, no formal psychological assessment is made, but subjective impressions may be recorded. As the client moves through the evaluation and aural rehabilitation aspects of the program, frequent testing is done to index the growth in auditory, visual, and perhaps combined communicative skills. In many cases, improvement in these receptive skills produces concomitant changes in attitude in the client. Although changes in performance on auditory or visual tasks during a rehabilitative program are meas- ured and recorded, the changes in selfnattitude or the psychological effect of improved communication ability are seldom measured. Some people do not make noticeable progress in an aural rehabili- tative program. The therapist may ascribe this to diverse factors, some of which may be physical, others psychological. It is possible that important variables in this type of situation are the pre- therapeutic self-attitudes of the client that preclude or inhibit the learning process. The determination of any existing relationship between pre-therapeutic attitudes and progress in the rehabilitation program would be invaluable information for the purpose of predicting success. It is anticipated that not all hard-of-hearing people follow the recommendation to obtain a hearing aid. The exact percentage of those not following the recommendation because of negative attitudes is not known, but it is anticipated that the percentage is high enough to cause the audiologist some concern. Perhaps if the audioloa gist had knowledge of certain relevant attitudes of the client during the evaluation procedure, he would be able to improve the chances of a successful hearing aid recommendation through a counselling pro- gram. The preceding comments can be summarized in the following manner. As professionals working toward the rehabilitation of hard- of-hearing adults, audiologists and hearing therapists are constantly predicting-~predicting that benefit can or should be obtained through lipreading, auditory training, the use of amplified sound, etc. It is anticipated that many times the predictions are not correct because an important variable, the psychological adjustment status of the client, is unknown. It is expected that certain characteristic modes of adjustment to physical handicap are available and thatthe specific mode of adjustment utilized by the hard-of-hearing adult necessitates certain modifications in attitude and choice of goals in order to main- tain self-esteem with minimal devaluation of self, and that these atti- tudes and adjustments can yield invaluable information useful in a rehabilitative and counselling program. Quite independent of the possible modifications of self-attitudes occurring as a result of the benefit derived from aural rehabilitation or a counselling program, is the question of whether the hard-of-hearing adult differs psychologically from the normal hearing as indexed by self-feelings. This is the area of immediate concern of the research summarized in this paper. The hope is that these initial studies will lead to the development of an instrument that will be clinically useful by yielding relevant attitudinal data. Limitations of the Study Before such a test to assess the attitudes of the hard-of-hearing can become a reality as a clinical tool in the armamentarium of the hearing clinic, a series of studies beyond those reported in this paper are required. Normative data will be required; cross-validation studies will have to be designed and run; and validity will have to be demonstrated. The word "change" has been utilized in the discussion of self- concept and the beneficial results of aural rehabilitation. This term denotes passage of time or the observed difference in a state-of—being through time that results in alteration of the fundamental character- istics of the object under attention. To measure “change in self- concept” it would be necessary to obtain repeated measurements from the same individuals over time, the advent of hearing loss or therapy as one intervening variable. It is not within the limits of this study to ascertain "change" per as. This research was designed to evaluate differences between the self-concept of a hard-of-hearing pop- ulation and a normal hearing control group at a given moment in time. Organization of the Report Chapter I was organized to provide an introduction to the problem regarding evaluation of the self-concept of the hard-of—hearing adult and the role of and need for such measurement in the evaluation, counselling, and rehabilitation of these peOple. The problem to be investigated was broadly defined and limited. Chapter II consists of a comprehensive review of the literature pertaining to three areas of concern in this investigation. These areas are: (1) the self-concept; (2) the psychological effect of hearing loss; and (3) the sematic differential. Chapter III is concerned with the specifics of the designs for the two studies which were conducted. The subject samples, the method of data collection, and the methods of analysis will be outlined in detail. Because of the necessity for understanding the results of the first study (factor analysis) prior to detailing the design of the second study, the results of the factor analytic study will be pre- sented in this Chapter. This will preserve chronology and minimize confusion. Chapter IV consists of the presentation of the results of the study of self-concept of hard-of-hearing and normal hearing subjects. The results will be discussed in order to provide answers to the ques- tions originally posed. Chapter V is organized to present a summary of the research, a listing of the conclusions, and an enumeration of recommendations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF PERTINENT LITERATURE §elf~Concept In much of the literature the self-concept is characterized as that portion of the personality system to which the individual has conscious awareness. It is in this sense that the term is utilized here. Many definitions of self-concept are available and the one offered by Rogers4 appears representative. The self-concept or self-structure may be thought of as an organized configuration of perceptions of the self which are admissable to awareness. It is composed of such elements as the perceptions of one's characteristics and abilities; the percepts and concepts of the self in relation to others and to the environment; the value qualities which are perceived as associated with experiences and objects; and goals and ideals which are perceived as having positive or negative valence. Sherif5 points out the self-concept is formed genetically and is not resultant from instinctive ego drives, and Mead6 states that the "self is something which has a development; it is not initially there, at birth.” The structure of the self is the product of social 4C. R. Rogers, Client—Centered Therapy (Boston: Houghton- Mifflin Co., 1951), p. 136. 5 (New York: 66. H. Mead (ed. c. w. Morris), Mind, SelfLand Society university of Chicago Press, 1934), p. 135. M. Sherif and H. Cantril, The Psychology of Ego Involvements Wiley and Sons, 1947), p. 101. (Chicago: |.. .3 m .[I a p.- interaction between the organism and its environment. Mead7 points out that we develop an image of self by experiencing ourselves "not directly, but only indirectly, from the particular standpoints of We enter our own other individual members of the same social group.” experience as a self only by becoming an object to ourselves as others are objects to us. Only by assuming the point of view of this 'generalo ized other” can we develop some image of self. This "generalized other” may be one person or a social group, and as such, what goes to make up the organized self is the organization of the attitudes which are com« mon to this ”other.” The individual possesses a self only in relation to the selves of the other members of his social group; and the structure of his self expresses or reflects the general behavior pattern of this social group to which he belongs. Daig says, "The conception an individual forms of himself usually It generally takes the form of some kind of has a social reference. This is not to imply that all relation between the self and others." the values incorporated into an individual's self-concept are social d11 indicate that each values. Both Sherif and Cantril10 and Mea __. 7Ibid., p. 138. 81bid., p. 164. 9B. Dai, ”Some Problems of Personality Development Among Negro Children," Personality in Nature, SocietyJ and Culture, eds. C. Kluck- Knopf, 1959), p. 547. hohn and H. Murray (New York: 1oSherif and Cantril, op. cit., p. 98. 11Mead, op. cit., p. 201. self-concept is unique and many component values of it are the result of specific environmental interactions derived from the individual's distinctive experiences. Thus it would appear that the foundations of the self-concept are established in life through the organism's interaction with all the aspects of the environment that the sensory modalities enable it to ”discover.” 12 Dembo et a1. studied the attempts of visually handicapped individuals to adjust to their handicap. They reported that the following efforts toward adjustment were ineffective using normal sighted people as their model: (1) strenuous effort to equal or surpass the normal in certain roles; (2) rejection of help; (3) avoid- ance of discussion of their handicap; (4) forgetting the disability; and (5) acting as if it did not exist. These efforts left the person imperfect in the end and thus self-devaluation was inevitable. The adjustment process called "acceptance of loss“ was found to permit the handicapped to face the disability without devaluating himself. The thesis of this discussion is that the self-concept would appear to develop through the interaction between the individual and his en- vironment. This "interaction” might be thought more meaningfully of as “communication.” The interest of this research is limited only to those changes in relationship that exist as a result of hearing loss, and therefore are most noticeably limited to the relationship between 12 T. Dembo, G. Ladieu, and B. Wright, Adjustment to Misfortune: A Study in Social- Emotional Relationships Between injured and Non-Injured People, Final Report to the Army Medical Research and Development Board, Office of the Surgeon General, War Department (April, 1948). Typescript. 10 the self of the hard-of-hearing and that human portion of the environ- ment with which he must interact by means of verbal communication. When in later life the relationship is altered because of sensory im- pairment, realistic adjustment to the change necessitates the self- acknowledgment of the deficit and its associated social problems. This acceptance of the deficit provides the basis for realistic modifications of the self-concept and the overt manifestations of it. This altered relationship between the self and the environment does not result in devaluation of self since the self-concept (and the overt manifesta- tions of it) have been realistically adjusted to enable the person to function in the new relationship. It is anticipated that these people are able to maintain. a quite normal, but altered relationship with the environment, and will be able to evaluate themselves and their environment in a favorable light. The amount of change and specific areas of change are dictated by the limitations imposed by the amount and type of deficit, along with the individual's reliance upon that particular sensory modality in his everyday functioning. The selection of any other mode of adjustment--as outlined by Dembo g£_§1,--might be hypothesized to result in devaluation of self. The henomenological self-concept has received increasing atten- tion fromrihi:::sts and experimenters in the past twenty years. Wylie13 summarizes the theories, methods of evaluation, problems inherent in measuring this aspect of human organization, and a critical 13R. C. Wylie, The Self-Concept (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961). POI cho} 11 review of many studies relating to the subject of self-concept. The most serious problem facing the investigator involves measurement. Problems of measurement arise primarily from three sources: construct validity, subjects, and the test instrument. Wylie14 states that construct validity is crucial to the development of such a test since self-concept theories explicitly require measurement of a class of variables, the subject's conscious processes, and these phenomenal fields are beyond the direct observation of the experimenter. Satis- factory validity can not be obtained from predictive or concurrent validity estimates, as test resultsumy correlatewith scores of another test without giving any clues as to why this occurs. The appropriate procedures involved in establishing construct validity are as follows:15 (1) determining what variables other than the construct in question might be influencing results; (2) determining intercorrelations among measures presumed to measure the same construct; (3) internal factor analyses; and (4) determining predictable relation of alleged self- concept measures to other variables. Most of the studies in the literature have attempted to offer evidence regarding only the fourth criterion. As a result, Wylie reports that most of the instruments so far utilized have questionable validity. Many different types of instruments have been derived to measure self-concept, depending on the orientation of the theorist. It is im- portant to note, however, that all such instruments have relied upon 141b1d., p. 23. 15L. J. Cronbach and P. E. Meehl, "Construct Validity in Psy- chological Tests,” Ps cholo ical Bulletin, 52 (1955), pp. 281-302. 12 the subject's overt response either verbal or written, in the form of inventories, checklists, rating scales, open-ended tests, Q-sorts, etc. Wylie16 reports that a self-report response by the subject is necessary to index his phenomenal self, and the types listed above appear to be the only appropriate methods for measuring self-concept. She states that to obtain motor, autonomic, or projective responses make it impossible to determine whether responses relfect conscious or uncon- scious attitudes. Another difficulty arising from certain test instru- ments has to do with the nature of the instrument. When the subject's mode of reporting is limited, especially on forced-choice tests, one has no way of knowing to what extent the external limits imposed by the measuring instrument prevent an accurate report. For example, Jones17 found that the Q-sort technique introduces distortion into the results because the subjects are forced to produce quasi-normal dis- tribution of item placements when in fact in a free-choice situation, subjects produced more nearly U shaped distributions. The other major variable facing the experimenter is the Subject, whose responses we would like to presume are valid indices of his self-concept. Wylie18 points out, however, that his responses may be influenced by (a) his desire to select what he reveals, (b) his inten- tion to report attitudes he does not have, (c) his response habits, and (d) situational and methodological factors. For example, Jourard 16Wylie, op. cit., p. 24. 17A. Jones, “Distribution of Traits in Current Q-Sort Methodo- logy," Journal of Abnormal and Social Ps cholo , 53 (1956), pp. 90-95. 13 and Laskowlg found that subjects reveal more of their attitudes, opinions, tastes, etc., than about areas more salient to self-esteem maintenance. In summary, it appears that self-concept, by the common defini- tion, must be measured by some type of self-report technique and that this necessity introduces three major obstacles, namely construct validity, subjects, and the test instrument, to valid measurement. Only rigorous planning and sound methodological approach can produce results of some validity. Psychology of Hearipg Loss Many people concerned with the rehabilitation of hard-of—hearing adults have commented on the psychological problems that often accom- pany a loss of hearing acuity. The literature consists of many books and articles written about the deaf or hard-of—hearing and their prob- lems. Many of these biographical writings are summarized in the review of literature by Brunschwig20 and Wells.21 Brunschwig's review was limited to the writings of those who suffered hearing loss in childhood and contains statements from educational authorities in regard to the psychology of these individuals. Welles' reviewed 19S. M. Jourard and P. Lasakow, ”Some Factors in Self-Disclosure,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56 (1958), pp. 91-98. 20L. Brunschwig, Study of Some Personality Aspects of Deaf Children (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936). 21H. H. Welles, "The Measurement of Certain Aspects of Person- ality Among Hard-of-Hearing Adults," Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 545 (Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932). l4 writings of several individuals who suffered severe loss of hearing as adults. These writings expressed many divergent views on the psy- chology of hearing loss. Some Opinions indicated the hard-of-hearing have a "unique psychology” while others stated that there is no dif- ference between normal hearing and hard-of—hearing people. Some opinions indicated the hard-of—hearing are despondent, egocentric, suspicious, brooding, apathetic, and have feelings of inferiority; while others reported few of these psychological manifestations. Some reported the hard-of-hearing as feeling socially inferior and as a result they tend to withdraw or become aggressive, while others felt their behavior does not differ from normal hearing individuals. Many autobiographical reports by individuals with auditory impair- ment further indicated that the psychological and social effects of hearing loss vary greatly. Meyerson's22 review contains an excellent bibliography including most of the biographical and research studies to date in the area of the psychology of deafness. Numerous studies have been oriented toward the study of the psy- chological problems and behavior of hard-of—hearing and deaf children and adolescents. The use of paper and pencil personality inventories in investigations of psychological functioning has been questioned by Meyerson23 and Barker.24 Barker states that ”Personality tests of the —__._. 22L. Meyerson, ”Somatopsychological Significance of Impaired Hearing,“ Adjustment of Physical Handicap: A Survey_of the Social Psya chology of Physique and Disability, ed. R. G. Barker (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1953). 231bid., pp. 213-215. 24R. G. Barker (ed.), ”Introduction,” Adjustment of PhX§iQ§L fiéfléicap and Illness: A Survey_9f the Social ngcholoev of Physique 15 inventory type are generally not suitable for use in comparing physically disabled and nondisabled persons," because of items of "different inter- pretive significance" and because the "validity of personality schedules depends upon the comparability of the life situations of the tested persons and those of the standardization groups." Meyerson specifically points out the difficulty in using the Bernreuter Personalit Inventor , in addition to its limitations as enumerated by Barker. Meyerson states "that the traits, neurotic-tendency, introversion, and non- dominance (submissiveness) are not well differentiated by the inven- tory." Very few studies have been designed to determine or evaluate the psychological problems of the hard-of—hearing adult. The first three studies to be mentioned utilized the Bernreuter Personality Inventory and the results must be considered with caution because of the validity characteristics of the test. Welles25 administered the test to 196 women who were members of organizations for the hard-of-hearing. No data were obtained regarding the amount of hearing loss. The test was also given to 131 normal hearing women who were friends of the experimental subjects. Some attempt was made to keep the ages, educational level, and socio- economic status of the two groups the same. Thirty-one women were selected from the experimental group as they appeared to have excep- tional adjustment to their loss. The results (r = .12 between neurotic- tendency and hearing in better ear; no relationship between neurotic- tendency and hours of lipreading instruction; no relationship between and Disability (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1953), pp. 10-11. 25Welles, op. ci . 16 neurotic-tendency scores and age at hearing loss) of the testing of these three groups led to the conclusions that the hardoof-hearing tend to be more neurotic, introverted, and less dominant than normal hearing people. The special group of thirtyeone women who were termed "successful” did not differ significantly from the normal hearing friends. As a result Welles grouped the problems of the hard-of-hearing into three categories: (1) social inadequacies; (2) depressive ten- dencies; and (3) paranoid tendencies. Pintner26 tested ninety-four persons living in rural communities who belonged to a correspondence club for hardwof-hearing people. No data was presented as to degree of hearing loss. The control group consisted of friends chosen by the subjects who were of similar age, education and socio-economic status. The pattern of the results (no relationship between neurotic-tendency scores and age at hearing loss; no relation between neurotic-tendency and hours of lipreading instruc- tion) was similar to those of Welles, but Pintner's group achieved slightly higher scores indicating more deviancy from normal. Pintner, Fusfeld, and Brunschwig27 tested 126 ”deaf" persons from all parts of the country and fifty students attending Gallaudet College in an attempt to obtain a representative cross-section of the deaf population. No data were presented as to amount of hearing loss ——k 2 6R. Pintner, "Emotional Stability of the Hard of Hearing," igurnal of Genetic Psychology, 43 (1933), pp. 293-311. 27R. Pintner, I. Fusfeld, and L. Brunschwig, "Personality Tests of Deaf Adults," Journal of Genetic Psychology, 51 (1937), pp. 305- 327. 17 and no mention was made of the use of a control group. The results agreed with those quoted in the above studies of Welles and Pintner, revealing slight unreliable tendencies for the hard-of-hearing or deaf to be poorly adjusted. There has been an attempt to assess the psychological problems of the hard-of-hearing utilizing the Rorschach Test. This study was done by Zucker28 and the subjects consisted of a heterogeneous group of twenty-six people. They differed in color, education, occupation, amount of hearing loss, use of hearing aid, and age. She reported that the group showed a pattern of submissiveness, resignation, sup- pressed hostility, anxiety, and depression. Meyerson,2 however, reported that these conclusions are not supportable by inspection of the data and the interpretations of responses were not in agreement with standard interpretations. Two studies are reported in the literature in which the data were obtained by using psychiatric interview techniques. Both studies, by Ingalls30 and Knapp,31 were completed during World War II at Army rehabilitation centers. The conclusions were based on only one or two interviews per subject, but their findings indicated that depressive 28L. Zucker, "Rorschach Patterns of a Group of Hard-of—Hearing Patients," Journal of Projective Techniqpes, 11 (1947), pp. 68—73. 29Meyerson, op. cit., p. 218. 30G. S. Ingalls, "Some Psychiatric Observations of Patients with Hearing Defects,"_gccppational Therapy and Rehabilitiation, 25 (1946), pp. 62-66. 31F. H. Knapp, "Emotional Aspects of Hearing Loss,” Psycholo- EEEic Medicine, 10 (1948), pp. 203-222. 18 reactions were fairly common in these subjects and that paranoid reactions were quite rare. There appeared to be no special psychology of deafness among this group of adventitiously deafened adults. Ramsdell32 has written about the problems of the hearing impaired servicemen at rehabilitation centers and discusses the “characteristic depression” and ”feeling of suspicion” so often identified with the adult who is experiencing deterioration of auditory function. He associates the presence of these psychological manifestations with the loss of hearing at the “primitive“ level. Meyerson33 doubts the validity of this theory, in that the logical results are not evidenced in most studies. If this theory were true then all of the hardmofu hearing people would be depressed and suspicious and the more loss they had the greater would be the degree of these attitudes. Newby34 states that another characteristic of the hard-of-hearing adult is his reluctance to admit to others the existing sensory deficit. These individuals may resort to bluffing and the desire to conceal a , J . 35 withdrawal by the hard-ofuhearing adult. The Heiders have postulated hearing aid if one is worn. These factors lead to frustration and N 32D. A. Ramsdell, ”The Psychology of the HardeofJHearing and the Deafened fidult,” Hearing and Deafness: fipcuide for Layman, ed. H. Davis (New York: Rinehart Books, Inc., 1953), Chap. 16. 33Meyerson, ppy_pi£,, p. 250. 34H. Newby, Audiology: Pringiplgs and Practlgg (New York: Lppleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.; 1958), p. 220, 35F. Heider and G. Heider, “Studies in the Psychology of the Deaf, No. 2,” £sychological_Monpgggppp, 53 (5, 1941), pp. 93:96. 19 that people with normal hearing consider the deaf more similar to themselves than the blind for at least two reasons: (1) blindness, but not deafness, is generally a readily discernible handicap; and (2) normal hearing peeple experience silence with less grief than they experience darkness. Myklebust36 carried out a study primarily oriented toward evaluation of the deaf, but he did utilize some adult hard-of-hearing subjects for comparative purposes. He found that the hard-of—hearing had high Depression (D), Schizophrenia (Sc), and Masculinity-femininity (Mf) scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventogy. Pintner, Eisenson, and Stanton37 reported that the results of per- sonality testing with the hard-of—hearing indicate: . . . that in regard to all the traits so far studied, the differences between normal-hearing and hard-of-hearing are very slight. All of the studies agree in finding the hard- of-hearing somewhat more introverted than the normal hearing. Most of the studies find the hard-of-hearing less well emotionally balanced (more neurotic) than the normal hearing. They conclude that the hard-of—hearing as a group are not very dif- ferent from the normal hearing. In summary, it appears that there may be some differences to be noted between normal hearing individuals and the hard-of—hearing. Most of the studies reviewed were accomplished with one or more of the following/limitations: (1) small groups of subjects with some ‘ 36H. Myklebust, ”The Psychological Effects of Deafness,” American Appals of the Deaf, 105 (4, 1960), pp. 372—385. 37R. Pintner, J. Eisenson, and M. Stanton, The Psycholpgy of the Ehysically Handicapped (New York: Crofts, 1941), p. 203. 20 deficiencies noted in procedures; (2) deficiencies in the utilization of control subjects; or (3) deficiencies in the nature of the test instrument employed. The studies indicate, however, that some changes in self-concept might be anticipated as a result of hearing defici- ency in adults. They also indicate the need for the development of evaluative and research tools for investigation of these changes. The Semantic Differential This device was originally described by Osgood38 as an objective means of measuring meaning using associative and psychological scaling techniques. In essence it consists of a series of seven-point rating scales with the polar ponts identified by a pair of adjectival opposites. The stimulus word or concept is rated on this series of scales. It was designed to yield information on the connotative mean- ing of a concept in respect to the associative dimension chosen for polar values. The logical basis of the semantic differential is as follows: 1. The process of description or judgement can be conceived as the allocation of a concept to an experential continuum, definable by a pair of polar terms. 2. Many different experential continua, or ways in which meanings vary, are essentially equivalent and hence may be represented by a single dimension. 3. A limited number of such continua can be used to define a semantic space géthin which the meaning of any concept may be specified. In the early studies the three continua were labeled (1) evalua- tive, (2) activity, and (3) potency. "These three factors are taken 38C. E. Osgood, "The Nature and Measurement of Meaning,” Ps cholo ical Bulletin, 49 (1952), pp. 197-237. 39Ibid., p. 227. 21 as independent dimensions of the semantic space within which the meanings of concepts may be specified.”40 Thus the polar adjectives are selected from words belonging to these three definitive categories. Osgood, g£_gl.41 began by postulating a semantic space of unknown dimensionality. It was assumed that if words of opposite meaning were attached to the ends of this scale, the scale would represent a straight line function of meaning passing through the origin of the space, and that several of these scales would represent a multidimen- sional space. Factor analysis was utilized to determine the number of independent dimensions of this space. Three such studies are described by Osgood, et al.42 in which (a) the subject populations were varied, (b) the concepts judged were varied (eliminated altogether in one case), (c) the type of judgmental situation was varied, and (d) the factoring method was varied. The results of these factor analyses indicated the three primary dimensions of meaning mentioned above. Several other factors also appeared but accounted for little of the total variance. The evaluative factor accounted for about thirty-three per cent of the total variance and contained the greatest number of "pure" loadings. The activity and potency factors accounted for about one-half as much of the total variance as the evaluative factor. The findings indicate evidence of linearity between polar opposites in most cases. Additional 40C. E. Osgood and G. J. Suci, 'Factor Analysis of Meaning," Journal of Ex erimental Ps cholo , 50 (1955), pp. 325-338. 41Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, op. cit., p. 25. 421bid., pp. 31-75. 22 factor analyses have recently been reported utilizing self-concept variables. Smith“3 reported the identification of five factors relating to self-concept that are useful in defining the semantic space. Osgood,44 in attempting to develop a personality differential, utilized personality variables and the resulting factor analysis isolated six factors. The first three factors in both studies were most clearly isolated and all factors account for roughly the same proportion of variance as in the earlier factor analyses_ The term ”meanin ” has been mentioned without definin what is 8 8 meant by it. Osgood, et a1. spend considerable time discussing the theoretical concept of the process by which meaning is acquired. In brief the proposition is stated as follows in learning theory terms: A pattern of stimulation which is not the significant is a sign of that significante if it evokes in the organism a mediating process, this process (a) being some fractional part of the total behavior elicited by the significate and (b) producing responses which would not occur without the previous contiguity of nag-significate and significate patterns of stimulation. The significate is defined as any pattern of stimulation which evokes reactionsfrom the organism, and the sign is defined as any pattern of stimulation which is not the significate but evokes relevant reactions to the significate. The meaning of a sign has been defined as a representational mediation process--representational by virtue of comprising some portion of the total behavior elicited by the significate “ - _. -.- ”a--- .. 43, a . , P. A. Smith, *A Factor Analytic Study of tne belt-Concept,” _ernal of Consulting :sycholggy, 24 (1960}, p. 191. ’44C. E. Osgood,‘§tudies of the Generality of Affective Meaning .EZEEEEE (urbane: university of Illinois Press, 1961). 45 Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, op. cit., p. 7. 23 and mediating because this process, as a kind of self-stimulation, serves to elicit overt behaviors, both linguistic 22d non-linguis- tic, that are appropriate to the things specified. Thus, "words represent things because they produce in human organisms some replica of the actual behavior toward these things, as a mediation process.”47 Osgood g£_gl.48 than state that there are now two definitions of meaning. One is the meaning of a sign to a particular person from the representational mediation process which it evokes, and the other is the meaning of a sign that has been defined as a point in a specified semantic space. But if the assumption can be made that there is a limited number of representational mediation reactions available and that the number of these reactions corresponds to the number of seman- tic space dimensions, then direction within the space corresponds to what reactions are elicited by the sign, and the intensity of the re- actions is indicated by the distance from the origin. If this assump- tion is correct then the semantic differential can be utilized to measure meaning as defined by the mediation hypothesis. The meaning of signs is crucial to the development and interpre- tation of the projective tests like the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Tgpp, etc., and indeed even the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven- Eppy and Bernreuter scales are useful only because the meaning of signs varies from subject to subject as a result of their interaction with other people. The semantic differential appears to fit along the 461b1d., pp. 318-319. 471b1d., p. 7. 481b1d., pp. 26-27. 24 continuum at a point somewhere between the projective tests and the question-answer tests. The semantic differential is more projective than the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventogy or Bernreuter because it is anticipated that semantic differential responses would reflect more degree of ”affect" (defined as a specific subjective feeling or emotion attached to an object) than possible on either of the other tests. On the other hand the semantic differential is less projective than the Rorschach or Thematic gpperception Test because responses are limited by the structure of the scales. It was mentioned previously that the meaning of signs varies, and the indication is that: . . . the meanings which different individuals have for the same signs will vary to the extent that their behaviors toward the things signified have varied. This is because the composi- tion of the mediation process, which is the meaning of a sign, is entirely dependent upon the composition of age total behavior occurring while the sign is being established. This indicates that to change the meaning of signs, behavior with respect to objects must be changed. Thus it would appear that knowl- edge of word meaning could be utilized to infer psychological states and that personality deviations occur as a result of dis-ordered meanings attached to situations and/or persons. Osgood.££_pl. point out that this is a valid assumption based on the learning-theory concept of the mediation process and that the typical procedure for investi- gation would either be: 1 (a) to make predictions (from some theory or model) about the differences in meanings of certain signs to be expected 49Ibid., p. 9. 25 between the two groups and then test the prediction against the semantic differential, or (b) measure differences in meaning of concepts with the differential, make predictions about overt behavior in certain situations from these meas- urements, and test the accuracy of these predictions. In relation to obtaining information about self-concept, Osgood pp ‘31.,51 point out several ways in which this information may be ob- tained using the semantic differential. One way is to obtain ratings of attitude regarding self as a measure against the coordinates of the differential. Another mtthod'would be to obtain ratings of MYSELF and a variety of personality traits thereby enabling one to determine those characteristics rated closest to MYSELF. Still another method would be to obtain ratings of MY IDEAL SELF, MY LEAST LIKED SELF, and MY ACTUAL SELF. This would enable one to index the evaluation along a scale and to allow inter-person comparison. This test technique was chosen for the purpose of this study, then, because it was not felt that the interpretations of common instruments were necessarily applicable to the physically handicapped and because the semantic differential offered an objective method of indexing "affect." The Mgnnesota Multiphasic Personality_1nventory, Bernreuter, and other scales, sample characteristic overt behavior of the individual and then by comparing results with normative groups make inferences regarding psychological states. This method should not, Perhaps, be utilized with the physically handicapped as their overt behavior characteristics may not be reflections of the same psycho- logical states but rather realistic adjustments of self-concept ¥ 5912$§., P- 220- Sl'Ibid., pp. 241-242. 26 imposed by the physical limitation. For example, to the question ”Are you very talkative at social gathersings?,” the hard-of-hearing person's "no" answer might be scored as indicating psychological withdrawal when, in effect, the answer might well be determined by the reality of the situation. It is anticipated that the semantic differential would enable one to obtain "feelings about" items that would allow for more accurate inferences, since the subject would not be reporting how he performs but how he "feels” about various concepts. He may "feel" the same about PEOPLE as a normal heaing individual does and yet not be talkative at social events. If his ”feelings” about PEOPLE are quite different from the normal hearing individual, however, one may be able to infer some deviant psychological state. The semantic differential has been utilized in research in various areas of communications. It has been utilized in the measurement of personality both as an hypothesis testing instrument and as a means of quantifying subjective test instruments. The pertinent studies in the area of personality assessment will be discussed in addition to those studies important to the logic and validity of the semantic technique. Bopp52 utilized the semantic differential to investigate whether the factorial bases of schizophrenic judgments differ from normals. The control group was selected to match the experimental group in terms of age, sex, and education. The findings indicated that the semantic frame of reference for schizophrenics does not differ from 52J. Bopp, "A Quantative Semantic Analysis of Word Association in Schizophrenia" (unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Illinois, 1955). 27 normals. She also found that schizophrenics vary considerably in the use of scale positions in that they tend to utilize the more extreme scale values. Kerrick53 provided some evidence that IQ may be a factor in determining scale-checking style. She administered the semantic dif- ferential to high school students of known intelligence and the results indicated that low IQ students tended to be more polarized in response styles than brigher students. No difference was found in polarization as a function of anxiety-level as defined by the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Osgood and Luria54 described their use of the semantic differen- tial in the analysis of a multiple personality in which they did not have free access to any other diagnostic information about the person. Their general assumption was that “mental illness” is essentially a disordering of meanings or ways of perceiving from those characteristic of people judged "normal“ in our society. The concepts they utilized stressed supposed areas of conflict or concern, i.e., love, child, me, mother, sex, hatred, etc. They utilized fifteen concepts and ten scales from the three multiple personalities. Analysis of the reSponses com- pared with the therapist's description of the patient indicated a remarkable correspondence of the portraits. CronbachSS reports the L. 53J. Kerrick, ”The Effects of Intelligence and Manifest Anxiety on Attitude Change Through Communication“ (unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Illinois, 1954). 540. E. Osgood and Z. Luria, “A Blind Analysis of a Case of Mul- tiple Personality Using the Semantic Differential,” Journal of Abnormal 23g Social Psychology, 49 (1954), pp. 579-591. 55 L. J. Cronbach, Essentials of Psyghological Testing (New York: Harper and Bros., 1960), pp. 503-504. 28 semantic differential in this case added information about specific courses of conflict. Test-retest reliabilities were computed as the result of each personality having been tested twice. The coefficients ranged from 0.65-0.94 with a mean of 0.85. Lazowick56 has utilized the semantic differential to evaluate neurotic and normal identification of young adults with their parents. He used ten concepts presumed to be most representative of conditions existing in relation to identificaton, and nine scales chosen to repre- sent each factor on the basis of having maximal loading on that factor and minimal loading on the other two. The neurotic and normal groups were chosen by taking the upper and lower ten per cent of 418 students on the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale. He concluded that the semantic differential may be used to investigate the nature of identification and that the results are convincing and meaningful. The results indi- cated good construct validity according to the author. Semanssy utilized the semantic differential to study changes in connotative meaning as a result of a transorbital lobotomy. The test (ten concepts and fifteen scales) was administered to severely ill psychotics before and after surgery. Significant changes in concept ratings resulted. Grigg58 utilized the semantic differential to measure meaning assigned to "self,” ”ideal-self," and “neurotic" on forty-two —___ 56L. Lazowick, "0n the Nature of Identification," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51 (1955), pp. 175-183. 570. B. Semans, ”Use of the Semantic Differential with Loboto- mized Psychotics,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21 (1957), p. 264. 58 A. E. Grigg, "Validity Study of the Semantic Differential Tech- nique," Journal of Clinical Psycholo , 15 (1959), pp. 179-181. 29 under-graduate students. Two days later the subjects read a flattering article about a "Miss X” and rated their impression of her. Later thirty of the subjects read another article about “Miss X“ indicating neurotic behavior. They then rated her again on the assumption that the students would new rate her closer to their previous ratings of neurotic. Results indicated that the "ideal-self" was significantly further from "neurotic" than was "self." The experimental group (rating ”Miss X" as neurotic) shifted their ratings in the expected direction but the change was not statistically significant. These results were reported as being favorable to the validity of the seman- tic differential, indicating good construct validity. Kleinmuntz59 utlized the semantic differential technique to dif- ferentiate among types of psychotics. Previous factor analytic studies utilizing the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Bender-Gestalt tests identified four types of paranoid schizophrenics. He employed ten concepts and eleven scales. Three concepts were in- cluded to represent the self and others (me-they-PEOPIG); three concepts were chosen because they represented environmental objects that appeared meaningful to psychotics (friends-poison-the mind); the re- maining four items were concepts from the Minnesota Multiphasic Per- sonality Inventory Pa Obvious and Pa Subtle items. The resulting semantic structures were then plotted in three-dimensional space. This study differentiated two types of paranoid schizophrenia and 593. Kleinmuntz, "Two Types of Paranoid Schizophrenics," Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16 (1960), pp. 310-312. 30 demonstrated that these two groups, although apparently similar, think differently about themselves and their environment. His conclusion suggested that the practice of grouping psychotics on the basis of symptoms was inadequate. Smith60 reported a factor analytic study of self-concept using the semantic differential with a group of young adult male psychiatric patients. He found five factors relating to self-concept that were useful in defining the semantic space. The five factors were: Factor 1 Self-esteem Factor 2 Anxiety-tension Factor 3 Independence Factor 4 Estrangement Factor 5 Body Image Smith reported that Factor 1 corresponded closely to Osgood's evalua- tive dimension and that Factor 5 appeared related to Osgood's potency dimension. Helper61 reported a study of children's self-evaluation and their parents evaluation of them. Assessment was made of self-evaluation of eighth and ninth grade children and their parents utilizing the semantic differential technique, with the children rating concepts labeled ”Actual Self" and "Ideal Self" while the parents rated concepts labeled ”Actual Child Concept" and "Ideal Child Concept." The correlation between parental evaluations and self-evaluations by children tended to be small but consistently positive. Reliability coefficients ranged from 0.66 to 0.83. 6OSmith, op. cit. 61M. M. Helper, "Parental Evaluation of Children and Children's Self-Evaluations,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholggy, 56 (1958), pp. 190-194. 31 Korman62 investigated the personality theories of ten clinical psychology trainees, ten psychiatrists, ten social workers, and ten senior clinical psychologists utilizing the semantic differential. Each subject rated twenty concepts relating to diagnosis and therapy on nine scales representative of the three major dimensions of meaning. The results indicated significant intergroup differences in semantic structure and in degree of connotative similarity with social workers and clinical psychologists at opposite ends of the continuum and the psychiatrists in a medial position. In addition to the above studies pertaining to evaluation of per- sonality the semantic differential has been utilized to quantify sub- jective projective tests. Rabin,63 Kamano,64 and Zax65 have applied the semantic differential to Rorschach inkblots and have indicated the feasibility of this approach. Reeves66 administered the semantic 62M. Korman, "Implicit Personality Theories of Clinicians as Defined by Semantic Structure," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (1960), pp. 180-186. 63A. Rabin, ”Contribution to Meaning of Rorschach's Inkblots via the Semantic Differential,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, 23 (1959), pp. 368-372. 640. Kamano, ”Symbolic Significance of Rorschach Cards IV and VII,“ Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16 (1960), pp. 50-52. 65M. Zax and R. H. Loiselle, ”Stimulus Value of Rorschach Ink- blots as Measured by the Semantic Differential," Journal of Clinical Ps cholo , 16 (1960), pp. 160-163. 66M. Reeves, ”An Application of the Semantic Differential to Thematic Apperception Test Materials“ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1954). 32 differential and Thematic Apperception Test to undergraduate students. Her findings indicate that the direction of ratings agreed with eXpert evaluations of Thematic Apperception Tee; responses. Messick67 reported that the use of the semantic differential involved several assumptions: (1) ”when an integerscore is assigned as a concept's scale position on a particular scale, the property of equal intervals within that scale is assumed“; (2) "when a distance measure is taken over several scales, equal intervals between scales are assumed“; and (3) “application of factor analytic techniques to the assigned scores involves assumptions concerning the location of the origins, i.e., it is assumed that the zero-point falls at the same place on each scale, namely at the centroid." He used the psycho- physical method of sucessive intervals applied separately to frequently employed scales and indicated an approximate equality of corresponding interval lengths from scale to scale and a similar placement of origins across scales. He concluded that the scaling properties implied by the differential have some basis other than mere assumption. Con- cerning the equality of intervals within a seven point scale, an im- portant study has been reported by Cliff.68 The semantic differential utilizes adverbial quantifiers at the intervals between the poles. The adverbs used are slightly, ggite, and extremely. Cliff determined that these quantifiers yield almost equal increasing degrees of ‘— 67s. J. Messick, “Metric Properties of the Semantic Differential,” Educational and Psychological Measuremegt, 17 (1957), p. 200. 68M. Cliff, ”The Relation of Adverb-Adjective Combinations to Their Components" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1956). 33 intensity, 0.50, 1.00, and 1.50 respectively, when combined with adjectives. The semantic differential has been hypothesized as a means of measuring attitude. Osgood e£_§l,69 report the reasonableness of identifying attitude withthe.eva1uative dimension of the semantic space. They then report comparisons between this evaluative dimension and Thurstone and Gutman scales. The results indicated that whatever the Thurstone and Guttman scales measure, the evaluative dimension measured about as well. Since attitudinal measurement is done for predictive purposes, additional information is obtained and prediction improved by combining judgments from scales representing other dimensions than the evaluative factor. The standard criteria for measuring instruments are objectivity, reliability, validity, sensitivity, and comparability. The previously discussed studies70 indicate that the semantic differential meets the criteria fairly well. In particular, reliability data has been collected indicating that a shift of two scale units probably represents a significant change in meaning for one subject, and a shift of 1.00 to 1.50 scale units in factor score is usually significant at the five per cent level. Group data changes as small as 0.5 unit are signifi- cant at the five per cent level. Test-retest reliability coefficients 71 of 0.85 have been obtained in several studies. Osgood et al. reported excellent "face” validity and good construct validity has 69 . Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, op. c1t., pp. 190-198. 71 791219., pp. 125-188. Ibid., p. 141. 34 been reported in the literature. The studies relative to comparability indicate difficulty obtaining high loadings on factors that will hold constant for a series of concepts. Thus some concept-scale interaction has been evident. Only minimal subject-concept interaction has been found. Osgood72 discusses the presence of concept-scale interaction and speculates on the reasons for its existence. He believes the semantic differential is subject to "denotative contamination." Most adjectival scale terms have variable denotative meanings as well as their affective connotation. The denotation of masculine-feminine is elicited by the concept ADLAI STEVENSON while its potency connotation is elicited by the concept DYNAMO: a denotation of the scale hot-cold is tapped by LAVA, whereas its activity connotation is tapped by concepts like JAZZ and FESTIVAL.73 Another hypothesized cause of concept-scale interaction is what Osgood calls "factorial coalescence."74 Each concept itself has some charac- teristic attribute. The concept MOTHER has intense evaluative meaning, therefore if a scale has some evaluative loading, it should become more evaluative when placed with this concept. If the same scale has some loading on the potency dimension and is then utilized with a concept having a potency attribute, its affective meaning should become more potent. .The presence of concept-scale interaction means that there is no one semantic differential with a unique and well defined set of factors. 72Osgood, Studies on the Generality of Affective Meaning Systems, 0 . cit., p. 24. 73Ibid., p. 28. 74Ibid., pp. 28-29. 35 The presence of concept-scale interaction across a set of dissimilar concepts, however, does not mean that a specific instrument has to be 'made for each concept. Osgood7S reports the initiation of research to determine the presence of concept classes within which concept-scale interaction is minimal. One of these classes is of personality con- cepts. Six personality concepts were rated by forty-five subjects against thirty scales to determine whether the factorial structure was stable across the concepts. Six separate factor analyses were run--one for each concept--and the results compared. The three factors most clearly and consistently revealed in all analyses were labeled as morality, volatility, and toughness. Three other factors which were present in all analyses, but less clearly isolated, were labeled gpciability, uniqueness, and tangibility. In one of the studies of the series, Osgood and his staff asked twenty married college adults to rate forty diverse personality concepts on each of forty scales. The results, across all concepts, were factor analyzed. The factors isolated in the previous study reap- peared in this analysis along with a factor labeled ggtionality and an unnamed factor. The proportions of variance accounted for by these factors were essentially equal, accounting for fifty per cent of the total variance. The fact that very similar factors keep appearing in these studies suggests that there may be a common semantic system within which personalities are described.76 751bid., pp. 24-26. 76Ibid., p. 26. 36 M It is anticipated that individuals who become hard-of—hearing undergo some modification of the relationship between the self and the environment, either positively or negatively. It is understandable why common psychological test instruments that sample behavior could indi- cate some neurotic tendencies in this group. It has not been possible to evaluate objectively the dynamic covert personality characteristics of an individual, except by inference from observation of behavior.77 The danger of inferring psychological states from samples of overt behavior with the physically handicapped has already been pointed out, i.e., their overt behavior may not be a reflection of the psychological states one could infer with non-handicapped people, but rather realistic adjustments of attitude imposed by their physical limitations. The semantic differential was chosen for the purpose of this study because it appeared to offer a more objective method of measuring "affect." Also, as a result Of the criticisms of current instruments used to evaluate self-concept the semantic differential was chosen, not because it eliminates all methodological and scaling problems, but because it eliminates some of the more critical problems inherent in other tech- niques. 77Wylie, op. cit., p. 10. CHAPTER III TEST CONSTRUCTION AND DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES The experimental procedures outlined in this chapter are divided into two main areas. One is concerned with the development of an instrument to evaluate self-concept and the other with the collection of data from a hard-of-hearing population utilizing the semantic dif- ferential. These two areas are discussed separately in chronological order commencing with the development of a semantic differential instru- Iment. All procedures leading to the collection of data from a hard-of- hearing population will be included in this chapter, even though this entails the presentation of some results. Development of a Measuring Instrument There has been a considerable amount of research effort expended in determining the semantic structure for a wide variety of concepts and scales. The results of numerous factor analytic studies were available in the literature from which an experimenter might draw scales which have been already identified as to their factor loading. An exhaustive study, for example, was reported by Osgood e£_gl.78 in which seventy-six adjective pairs were evaluated against each of twenty concepts. Because of the concept-scale interaction previously cited, 78Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, op. cit., pp. 47-66. 37 and ava sca Whic Cone CHAPTER III TEST CONSTRUCTION AND DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES The experimental procedures outlined in this chapter are divided into two main areas. One is concerned with the development of an instrument to evaluate self-concept and the other with the collection of data from a hard-of-hearing population utilizing the semantic dif- ferential. These two areas are discussed separately in chronological order commencing with the development of a semantic differential instru- ment. All procedures leading to the collection of data from a hard-of- hearing population will be included in this chapter, even though this entails the presentation of some results. Development of a Measuripg Instrument There has been a considerable amount of research effort expended in determining the semantic structure for a wide variety of concepts and scales. The results of numerous factor analytic studies were available in the literature from which an experimenter might draw scales which have been already identified as to their factor loading. 78 An exhaustive study, for example, was reported by Osgood et al. in which seventy-six adjective pairs were evaluated against each of twenty concepts. Because of the concept-scale interaction previously cited, 78Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, op. cit., pp. 47-66. 37 38 the decision was made to initiate the research with a factor analytic study which would provide the most precise information relative to scale-factor relationships and the existing interaction. Choice of Concepts apdecales The choice of concepts to be rated appeared to be unlimited since the subject's task was to rate how they feel about the concepts as opposed to how they habitually behave. In many instances feel and behave might be synonomous but in others a discrepancy would be a antici- pated. Therefore, it was not felt that the hard-of-hearing subjects would be penalized by choice of concepts as they are on paper and pencil personality tests that ask for samples of behavior. The concepts utilized were chosen on the following bases and arbitrarily limited to nine for economy of administration: (1) that they represented sus- pected areas of concern to the hard-of-hearing that would logically entail attitude differences beCause of alterations in communication ability in inter-personal situations; and (2) that they be applicable for use with both sexes and both experimental and control groups. As a result the following concepts were utilized: MYSELF FRIENDS MY HAPPIEST SELF MYSELF WITH A HEARING LOSS STRANGERS MYSELF WITH A HEARING AID MYSELF IN THE FUTURE . PEOPLE OF AUTHORITY MYSELF AND FAILURE wan—o \OWVO‘U‘I The selection of adjectival scales stressed three criteria. The first criterion was their factorial composition-~those having maximal loading on one factor and minimal loading on the other factors (as determined by previous factor analyses). The second criterion was relevance to the concepts being judged. The third criterion was semantic stability for the concepts and subjects to eliminate denota- tive scaling as much as possible. Osgood's Thesaurus analysis,79 analysis,80 chosen to be evaluated are as follows: natural-strange moral-immoral lighthearted-depressed clever-stupid large-small masculine-feminine leader-follower . near-far quick-slow lO. success-failure 11. kind-cruel 12. unafriad-afraid l3. mild-intense 14. full-empty 15. secure-insecure l6. emotional-unemotional 17. popular-unpopular l8. lenient-severe 19. talkative-silent 20. clear-confused 21. sociable-unsociable 22. relaxed-tense 23. happy-sad 24. calm-excitable 25. fair-unfair \DQ‘IO‘U‘wal-I o . o and from Smith's self-concept analysis.8 Fifty scales were chosen from Osgood's Personality Differential The scales interesting-boring true-false sincere-artificial strong-weak good-bad active-passive refreshed-tired easy-hard apparent-unapparent humorous-serious liked-disliked complete-incomplete valuable-worthless warm-cold healthy-sick superior-inferior useful-useless sharp-dull confident-unsure tender-tough optimistic-pessimistic predictable-unpredictable comofrtable-uncomfortab1e positive-negative desirable-undesirable However, the choice of scales by the above criteria did not ensure that the factor loadings obtained in the studies would remain stable across the concepts chosen to be employed in this study. 79Ibid., pp. 53-61. 80 op. cit., p. 26. 81Smith, op. cit. Osgood, Studies on the Generality of Affective Meaning Systems, “'7." ' . -Ir' '1! .. .1- 40 In an attempt to minimize concept-scale interaction the concepts were structured so that the subjects were always rating their feelings about people. It was thought that individuals would rate themselves and others from essentially the same point of reference (even though the concept rated was located in a different environment) so that scales would more likely maintain their factor orientation and loading, than if they were rating different classes of concepts. Concepts 2, 5 and 8 would be rated from a different perspective than the reamining concepts, but again, it was not anticipated that the way a person evaluates others differs from the way he evaluates himself, i.e., people define themselves with the same yardstick they use to define others. It did not appear that the subjects would or could faithfully record their true feelings, especially negative self feelings, in a com- parative situation--MYSELF WITH FRIENDS, etc. Maintenance of self- esteem would necessitate subjects overestimating their standing on socially desirable characteristics when doing so in direct comparison with others. What can be inferred about the rater's self-concept from his rating of others? Fortunately, there is considerable evidence82 that self-regarding attitudes can be inferred from knowledge about regard for others. The usual method for inferring self-regard is to utilize a MYSELF--IDEAL SELF discrepancy score, with increasing degrees of isomorphism indicating increased self-regard. This approach has been questioned by Wylie83 for various reasons among which is the notion 82Wylie, op. cit., pp. 235-240. 83Ibid., pp. 27-30. 41 that the IDEAL SELF rating is stereotyped by social desirability. In an attempt to utilize a discrepancy score as a possible source of additional self-concept information the concept MY HAPPIEST SELF was utilized. It was anticipated that rating this concept would approximate more a true reflection of what the individual's ideal was with a minimum of social desirability directly affecting the rating. It was assumed that most individuals have been happy at some time and can determine cognitively their definition of it. In the end, however, it might be found that this HAPPIEST state is socially prescribed to the point that it approximates an IDEAL value, or the discrepancy score may add little information to that obtained on the MYSELF rating. It was anticipated that the concepts as listed would yield the most valid judgments possible. The concepts, then, involved the subject rating himself in six different contexts and rating three other similar classes of individuals. Considerable care was exercised in choosing scales in order to mimimize concept-scale interaction, but rather than assume that ade- quate control of this variable had been achieved by careful selection procedures, a factor analytic study was designed to determine the specific relationships. Dgta Collection Procedures The purpose of this study was to obtain judgments on each of the fifty scales for each of the nine concepts. The test booklet was made up consisting of eighteen pages. Page 1 had Concept 1 MYSELF typed * 83Ibid., pp. 27-30. 42 across the top. Twenty-five of the fifty scales were then arranged below the above caption. Page 2 contained the same heading, MYSELF, with the word "continued“ typed beneath. The reamining twenty-five scales were below. The exact format for Concept 1 can be seen in Table l. The carrier phase "How do I feel about: ” was employed to introduce each concept to help the subjects retain the same perspective as they moved from page to page of the booklet. The adjectival opposites were separated by a seven alternative scale with the scales arranged in random order under each concept with the place- ment of the polar opposite on the left side of the scale also deter- mined randomly for each concept. The remaining sixteen pages of the booklet were arranged similarly with respect to the random arrangement of scales. Concept 2 FRIENDS occupied pages 3 and 4, and so on, with Concept 9 MYSELF AND FAILURE on pages 17 and 18. The same carrier phrase was employed on all pages except those for Concept 4 MYSELF HITH A HEARING LOSS and Concept 6 MYSELF WITH A HEARING AID. The carrier phase was modified to ”How do (or would) I feel about so that normal hearing people could respond without ambiguity. Appro- priate instructions were written and clipped to the front of the booklet. These instructions (Appendix B) were derived from those utilized by Osgood, e£_pl.84 Their instructions were modified however, to state the directions more simply because the populations to be sampled in subsequent aspects of this study were going to consist of people representing diverse educational and intellectual levels. The ¥ 84Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, op. cit., pp. 82-84. 43 TABLE 1 CONCEPT-SCALE FORMAT EMPLOYED IN FACTOR ANALYSIS STUDY How do I feel about: incomplete valuable MYSELF complete ttttt ————_——————————_———_ ..... ————————-——— nnnnn —— _— —.—— —-—. —- —— —— s I a s — — —_ —_ —— — — a n u o —— — — — — — —— e u o s o —————————— ..... .— —— —- — —— ————- —— e o o o e——— —— —— ———_—— —— ——— eeeeee ———————~—————-—————— worthless _optimistic predictable uncomfortable 44 TABLE 1 Continued How do I feel about: MYSELF natural : : : : : : strange immoral __u__mora1 lighthearted depressed clever ...... stupid Small : : : : : : large masculine : : : : : : feminine leader : : : : : : follower far ..... near slow quick success . . . failure kind ..... cruel afraid ..... unafraid intense ...... mild full empty insecure ...... secure unemotional emotional unpopular : : : : : : popular lenient : : : : : : severe talkative ...... silent clear ...... confused sociable ...... unsociable relaxed . : . . . . tense happy . . . . sad negative : : : : : : positive unfair : : : : : : fair nine differentials were administered to all subjects in the same numeri- cal sequence in which they are listed on page 38. No attempt was made to randomize or counter-balance concept order since Aiken85 reports that no significant differences in scalar locations of concepts occurs as a function of the context in which they are embedded. Sixty mimeographed test booklets were produced and administered to fifty-five college students at Michigan State University. The tests 85Ibid., p. 84. 45 were given under usual classroom conditions, to students enrolled in speech courses. Two of the classes met during the day and one met at night. The utilization of an evening class tended to widen the age range of the subject population. This population is statistically summarized in Table 2. Each subject made 450 judgments. Approximately forty minutes were required to complete the task. Treatment of the Data The data were quantified by assigning a value from one to seven to the seven scalar locations. The value "one“ was arbitrarily assigned to one end of each scale and "seven” to the other end. The quantified judgments were transferred to IBM data processing cards. All the data from one subject for one concept was punched on one eighty column card. The combination of scales concepts, and subjects utilized generated a 50 x 9 x 55 cube of data (N = 24,750). A 50 x 50 Pearson Product-Moment correlation matrix was obtained fox each con- cept. In addition a 50 x 50 correlation matrix was computed across all subjects and concepts. Thus a correlation coefficient was obtained indicating the relationship between each and all scales with every other scale for each concept individually and across all concepts. These intercorrelations were calculated with IBM equipment. Each correlation matrix was then subjected to factor analysis, utilizing an IBM 709 computer. A correlation matrix can be factor analyzed in a variety of ways. The decision as to the most appropriate method to provide for statisti- cal simplicity and psychological meaningfulness was made through the fa. qul 46 TABLE 2 THE NUMBER OF SUBJECTS PARTICIPATING IN THE FACTOR ANALYSIS STUDY SUMMARIZED BY AGE AND SEX . Frequency Distribution Age Males Females 17 O 1 18 l 1 19 l 2 20 4 4 21 9 4 22 7 2 24 O l 25 3 0 26 l 0 27 2 0 28 2 0 30 2 0 32 2 0 33 2 0 39 0 l 41 1 0 42 0 1 56 O 1 Total 38 17 Median Age: 21.60 First Quartile: 20.47 Third Quartile: 26.62 cooperation extended to this investigator by the Communication Research Center of Michigan State University. Dr. Malcolm McLean of the Center not only provided counsel regarding the recommended factor analytic procedure, but also provided the clerical staff re- quired to prepare the data for the computer. 47 The principle axes solution method86 was utilized to produce an initial solution. Harman87 reports that this method is the statis- tically Optimal solution, but that generally it is not acceptable to psychologists because it lacks meaningful factor solutions. TwO com- mon analytical methods employed after the initial solution has been obtained to provide an objective solution to the problem of psycholo- gical meaningfulness are the quartimax method88 and the varimax s9, 90 method. Both of these methods are rotational procedures ”for transforming any initial solution to a simple-structure solution."91 These methods also require orthogonality, i.e., that the factors be un- correlated,92 or in geometric terms, at right angles to one another. The rotational procedure, in the varimax method, involves the rotation _¥ 86H. Hotelling, "Analysis of a Complex of Statistical Variables into Principal Components," Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24 (1933), pp. 417-441, 490-520. 87H. Harman, Medern Factor Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 4. 881bid., pp. 294-300. 89Ibid., pp. 301-308. , 90 H. F. Kaiser, ”The Varimax Method of Factor Analysis” (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1956). 91 Harman, op. cit., p. 289. 92 Ibid., p. 309. 48 of all orthogonal axes of the three dimensional space to arrive at simple-structure. The five conditions for simple-structure are: 1. Each row of the factor matrix should have at least one zero. 2. If there are m common factors, each column of the factor matrix should have at least m zeros. 3. For every pair of columns of the factor matrix there should be several variables whose entries vanish in one column but not in the other. 4. For every pair of columns of the factor matrix, a large pro- portion of the variables should have vanishing entries in both columns when there are four or more factors. 5. For every pair of columns of the factor matrix there should be only a small number 063variab1es with non-vanishing entries in both columns. Osgood p£_pl,94 state that a rotational procedure producing a multiple- factor solution is required to isolate more than the three dominant factors of his earlier studies. The varimax method was chosen as the rotational procedure to be utilized following the initial solution provided by the principal axes method. This choice was made because Harman says the varimax criterion "does a better job of approximating the classical simple-structure principles,”95 and because Osgoot pp 96 31. felt the quartimax method yielded factors difficult to interpret. Results of Factor Analysis The complete results of factor analysis are contained in Appendix A. For present purposes an abbreviated summary of the results is presented. The purpose, at this point, is to evaluate and compare factor structure from concept to concept so that scale-factor-concept relationships might be observed. In order to accomplish this, the 93 Ibid., p. 113. 94Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, op.ci ., p.51. 95Harman, op. cit., p. 289. 96 Osgood, Suci, and Tannebaum, op. cit., p. 52. 49 following tables were constructed so that only the scales having the highest loadings on each of the factors are presented. Most of the factors have been labeled. These labels were derived arbitrarily by attaching a name to the value, that in most cases, was suggested by the scales measuring that value. Concept-scale interaction is evident in the data of Tables 3-12, with certain scales changing from factor to factor as a function of concepts. Inspection of the data, however, reveals that the same, or similar, factors seem to appear on many of the concepts. In general, the first factor of each concept appears to be an evaluative-type dimen- sion. In some cases, this evaluative aspect has been broken down into two or more factors, variously labeled as Capability, Popularity, Sociability, Alertness, Assurance, or Gravity. Another consistent appearing factor is one labeled Toughness. A third consistent factor is related to honesty-morality and is generally labeled as Genuineness. A fourth factor is related to emotionality and is referred to as . Egcitability or Anxiety-Tension. Other factors appear with specific concepts but their generality across more than a few concepts is lacking. It should be noted that on Concept 8 PEOPLE OF AUTHORITY there appears to be a combining of the ggpability and Genuineness dimen- sions producing a Genuineness-Capability factor on that concept alone. Considerable similarity in factor structure can be seen between these factor analytic results and those presented by Osgood97 during the development of his personality differential. His factors were 97Osgood, Studies of the Generality of Affective Meaning Systems, 020 c1t., p. 260 /|||||Irl | IIII mo.n passwmeoo so.n ouo>omuucmaao~ 50.: cw30unu0vcou oucewuu> kuoa Nod.m mocmwwo> _coaaoo Nmo.m mm. usuuueawaauuaouwaes wmocnmaos m wouoom mm. eanuuuwvoumaanuflcwuuwvaua mm. kuoaaauawuoa we. oawawaouuocwuauaua on. Hawowmuuuouuuooaua ouauwuu> deuce NQM.N we. owneuuoauu oocswum> coaaoo Nmn.¢ oucmwuu> kuoa Non.n o heuosm oocaguo> aoaaoo Now as . . mmococasaoo N wouuwm as. eacoucwuvafia om.u Hwaoauoaucauaocowuoam an. woaoHaomuuacooa an. oacouauxo-aamo Nu. vuaawaoouuuoau oocwwum> Hmuoa NO¢.¢ an. zo~muxuwav oucawus> coaaoo NoN.m an. quuowcwuuowuomsu mm. manauwmovcanwfinmummao Nowawcmuuuxm m Heuuum om. Hasvuausno mm. ouaaaauucokuaou as. enowuomneaouoaac mN. musdwwmnouooosa Na. noncommuvnvouueocucwwa om. momanuuoauoanoaae> ms. unauunmoxuaou owl mmoaoasuaamoo: moaowus> douoa Ho¢.& oucmwue> AuuoH Rem.om ooaowum> coaaoo RGN.¢ wocmwue> aoaaou Nmo.mm coHaaoHuhuowxa< s neuuom wwwaflcommw a nauowm A; I Awueouaoo Hawuuo>0uunuahawc< auouo>wcpv m mAm awuoa Rwo.n mm. nonoHHOHouuvwofi 005.22, cofiuoo 8146 coughed, kuou. .306 V ooceuww> coaaoo Nan.HH ca nouuoh on. Hwaowuoeocsuawcouuoao oh.a sanwuwoxunaamu Nmmmmmmmmm n nauuqh an. unmanageasnucuuwnna uuanwuw> amuos Rem.¢ ouawfius> Houoa Nan.n mucouuo> coaaou 80H.“ Nu. messages: . . unwound u u use w 3.3.... 858 "a m 3% p .32... WM. 2. wmpwrhfiaw a neuuwm mm. mmuacuuoauoficesfio> oocmmuw> Houoa No~.o~ nu.n moaamcouuuwwau an. vac:voom ooawwua> coeaoo Nmm ca mm. manauaaovcsnoacsuumuv so. aaoaomauaauua: N wouowh oucsauw> HquH No~.¢ oucuwuu> kuoa New.m oouwwus> soaaou NNH.m oucawue> aosfioo NNo.m wo.u adamamuonu w Houses Nmmmmmmumm n houses mo.- uafipmjosuu mo.- o>fiomunno>auow on. acacuaauuocwaouuwa an.u Muskogee“: mo.- nowuowcfiauowuoeso mn.a squanwcouum no.n cwsouuuovsou Mn.u wafiuocawawumuuoucfi no. oHnquWvuuecsnoanouowvoue nu.n mumnuhmuu mn.u vuxfiamfiunvoxwa oucwfiuw> Hausa an.s uoaowuo> kuoa No~.o oocwwum> aeuOH No~.ofi uuaawum> coasoo N¢m.o ooawwua> canoo Nnm.a ouaswuu> coeaoo NNm.m~ n acuuwm mummmwmmm a wouowm Nmmmmwmmmm H wouuah Assumes--a ammozoov 298$ 3.2.83 zo wag madam Samoa: 02325 $3.224 «8.9; so Ease—m a mam0uwmucuo>0u0mom QM. H¢WIHNUH O0. uauuwadeesuucuuumaa ouce0uw> 0auoa Nuo.¢ uosw0um> coaaoo 800.0 00 neuuoh ~0.a 0wc00uoaoasa0sa00uoso m0. o0nwu0uxoua0wu ouca0uu> 0suoa Nan.¢ uuam0ua> coaaoo N00.0 . m 90uowm mm. 00:0nmum0m ooca0ua> 0suoa N~¢.q uuaw0uw> coEEoo 800.0 0 nouuwm on. o00su00vounasuu0nwu00voue «A. . oucoua0av00a uuamwum> 0muoa Now.0 ooua0wm> cosfioo 8mm.“ 5 nouumh 00.: nwsounuovcou 0m.n uuwnuhmoo ouaa0uu> 0wu0H $00.0 mucm0uw> aoaaoo N0m.m umocnmaoa 0 HOuoam «0.- 0auoaa0u0ouoa 00.: 0w0oww0uuwuowouc0m 0n.u v0ouuauw3 ooaw0uw> 0auOH NON.0 uocw0ue> coaaoo N0¢.m amucm=0saoo m neuuum 00.: 0oswo-0c0x 00.: 00aumwuv0mumac= 0A.: cuHHunvusmmumou 0a.: womamcoouumo0o ouao0na> 0wuoa $00.0 uocw0ua> canoo an.m a00uwuco0uo 0 wouuwm 00. omcouuuoxs0ou S. 0335309033503 00. um0=momcsnws0=mom nu. ou00aaooc0aouo0aaou uocw0um> 0auOH Nwa.0 wodwfihfl> EOE—=00 Nmé . GA usua000w0ah m neuowm 0n. o0nsw0mu0cauo00wu0mw0 mm. wa0wonsmc0umououa0 mm. umu0omnu0nwom: aucm0um> 0suoH 800.00 oocmeu> coaaoo $00.00 u0000w so ~ Houosh m0. anus-weouum 0n. ousuuma0nuusuum me. uppaap-p>appxapp 0N. ousmaauuaou0mcoo N0. o00u0oomusuo00o000m aocm0nm> 0wuoa Nmm.~0 mocw0um> soaaoo N0n.m0 u0000a0oom 0 acuooh AmazmHMhnnm Humozoov mMOHo¢E afiH 0muos N0¢.m ouao0um> coaaoo N00.¢ 0 HOuuem m0. o00mu0000uacsau00uu00vmua nn.n 00suwwn00mumwc: moco0ue> 0ouoH N~0.m ouadwue> coaaou N~N.0 amoco>0mconoummfl. 0 acuoem 00.: owcwuumu0muamwa 00am0um> 0suoa Nmm.m oueo0uw> aoaaoo N0m.0 n nouomm. 00. oncouc0u000e um.u o00muwoxwu50mu mm. 0maO0uoaocsu0ma00uoBm oucm0uw> 0muoH $00.0 00am0um> cOEEoo $00.5 hu000nmu0uxm. 0 scoops 00. 00m8muowum0 0m.u :wDOunuovcou aw. UCfiGHENNIQCHHSOmma ouamwuu> 0mu08 N00.m uocmwum> coaeoo $00.0 owmaH 000m. 0 nobomm 00. mno0suwo3ao00ms0m> m0. mus00mmnmmooosm m0. o>0mmmnno>0uum ooco0wa> 0ouoa $00.0 ooam0uw> canoo Nno.0 mu0>0mmmm. 0 0000mm. filing; |lll lll'll m0. acoummmmcsnuaoumamm m0. usmuuwoc m0. om0w0uosuu 00:35; 038. so“ .0 oucm0um> cosaou $00.0 ucoaowcmuumw. m Houomm. 00. o0nmu0mmvcsuu0oeu0mo0 an. o00e0uomcsnu0ns0uom 0w. uo0sdoaasuuw0sqoa 0m. , pprHpaeupoxa0 oucu0um> 0muoH R00.~0 oucu0um> coaaoo Nm0.00 .Nuwum0smom N MMuunM mu. ousoomc0uousomm ow. mwo0mm=a0smoms om. 0Hpe-app0p 0w. mouHunvunmunmou N0. 00dsuauuu>o0o Nm. wa0uonawc0umuuous0 oucm0us> 0muoa N00.n~ mucm0um> aoaaoo NNN.mm 3003208 0 088M ~0. 00eao:uwus0 m0. oc0c0aow:ucu0aouwa 0m.:o0nmuuowaoocs:o0nsuuowaoo oocw0um> 0muoe N00.0 00.: aco00a:o>0uox0au ousw0uw> eoaaoo NNM.0 00.: oao0uou:asouoasn 00.: o0nu0uomas:u00w0ooa sumam Nuom m wouumm 00.: 00ou:auo3 00.: wu00aaouc0:ouo0maoo 00.: 0oauu:vc0x oucm0um> 0wuoa N00.00 .: us :zmmm muss we coaao . 00.: 000wu0uxo:a0eu mw.: muo>mw:u”o0co0 0 > o NN0 00 00.: oncou:0oxw0ou mfi . 00.: cw50u:uuvcuu 0&0000m0oom N neuumm Nu omcoua0:000a oucm0ue> 0muoa NON.m mm. 0mco0uoaoc::0oa00uoao coca . . . 0um> soaaoo h0~ 00 ON w00uo0c0:uo0umdsm oocw0um> 0wuoH N00.0 . ouasaua> coaaoo Nmm.m on u>0umwoc:o>0u0moa . auoanmsos 0 nouomm 0m. . vomswcoo:umo0o Nu000nmw0uxm 0 nauumh Nu. o>0momm:o>0uum oo.- papmpp-p0pm ma. soap:mepappn 00. ao0u:000=v 00.: 000:um:h0>u0u 0N. 00euwe:v0ouwmcs Nu. 00:00o0:eoouuam 00.: 000:0000 0m. mwm0suuos:o0nm=0a> mm. wc0uon:wc0uoououc0 00.: om0m0:o=uu mm. awo0oms:0smoma ooau0um> 0muOH N-.m ouco0um> 0quH N~0.00 oucm00m> 0auOH NON.0N ooae0us> season N0N.M0 auam0uo> coaaoo $00.00 ouam0um> aanoo $00.0N emoGMmMumououcH 0 neuumm onocaa0acm0 m uOuomm mu0000w0m0 0 uOuomm Ammo; oszeum a maH: mama»:--s ammozoov escapes nuaaaoma zo ezuaeoa nausea ammmon quzomm mHmwa 0euoa . N0n.n . : .: : ouco0ue> coaaoo N0N.0 00 0oauo 0:00 N0 0wuoaa0 0euoa 00. ouo>ua:uca0co0 00.:00asuuowaouaa:000auuowaoo N wouuwm m0. £0:0u:u00cmu N0.: owcauuw:0uuauea on. cus£:%aso cuam0ue> 0suoa N0m.N0 n0. ouausa:ua0000oou oucw0uw> 0muOH 800.0 moam0us> coaaou Nu0.0N 0n. n “=00uou:aaouoadn ooamwue> coaaoo N00.00 ucoaomamuumu N wouoem 00:00 u>awnwoa N00.0 mmmmmmammm 0 acuomm sooe0ua> o flaN 0 000: 00msum:um>m0o Nu0>wu0 0 wouuom 00. a0nu0oomco:o0nm0oon 00.: ua0adomcsnue0saom 00. 0c0uon:0c0umouauc0 0N.: 0m03:0couum 00.: oc0a0aum:oc00soasa mu. an0suuoB:o0nw=0m> 05.: 00:0:ewena 00.: oeaouc0:000a 0N. aao0uws:0suua= 00.: 360e:xo0:v oocswum> 0wuoa N00.m ouee0uu> 0ouoa NON.00 muc00ue> 00009 N0m.00 auce0uu> coaaoo RN0.0 ouaa0um> coaaoo N00.N0 eucs0um> coaaoo NnN.0N 0 Hayden hu0000wmeo . m nouuwm amucuuo0< 0 wouuum i! |fl1 Ii :Jhlpl inl l 0MOHU 0ouoa H00.0 moanwue> coaaoo . HON.0 muma0 00mm. 5 usuoem 00.: uwawcsruwwm 05.: vumn:hmmm 00.: oua>ou:us00ca0 oucwwum> 0quH N00.0 oucm0uw> aoaaoo N00.0 huwuo>mm 0 Heuumm N0.: 0:0000:0=0uaououc0 50.: uu0amonca:ua0amoa 05.: 00300u00:0ux00 ooam0uu> 0euoa NON.5 ousmwum> coaaoo .N50.00 Nu0us0snom 0 Houumh 00. ouo0daooc0:ouo0eaou 00. 000mu000mumas:o0nmu00voum m5. umm:umoc ouas0um> 0suos $00.5 uucw0um> coaaoo 800.00 usuauwdsuuam 0 Hauowm 00. 0muoaaw:0muoa 054 000mw:esuu 00. 000:0000 uuawwuw> 0mu0H N00.00 oucw0um> coaaoo N0N.00 mumcoawacmo m uOuumm 80¢ cage 0 PS: 5352...... $8208 283m 5.0.380 zo $05.3 3.28 .0353 e238...“ 33.32 .8850 .8 Essen 00.: oncou:0oxd0mu 00.: mHDQuHOMEooa::uaamuHowaou 00.: m300umm:m:ouoaa£ 50.: o>0mmma:o>0uuw 05.: owumHBHammm:u0um0awuao N5.: xo0m:mnu0am: ooas0um> 0muOH NNN.00 moaa0wm> coaaoo N00.0N 535030 N nouuam 05. 00naum:uu>m0o N5. u00u00a0:u00uoasm 05. mmo0om::0:moms 05. mmm0£uuoa:00nms0m> 00. 00:0:muena wofiflwhfl> HQUOH. Nomohfi mucmwuw> aoaaoo N50.0N Nu000000mo . 0 acuumm 57 on. ope00p0-p003 muco0um> 0muoa $0N.0 ooaw0um> coaaoo $00.0 m uOuuem 50.: o>0umwoc:o>0u0moa N5.: o>0mmmm:a>0uum ouca0um> 0muoa , $00.0 muca0uw> coaaoo $05.5 0 neuumm 00. 000e0ooma::o0nm0ooa N0.: 0wc00uoamc::0ma00uoau 50. vmm:hmmmn oocw0um> 0auoa $N0.0 ouaw0um> coaBoo $00.5 5 uouumm 05. 00mume:v0mummcs 00. 0m0o0w0uum:muauc0m ouam0ua> 0muOH $00.0 uocm0wm> coaaoo $00.0 0 nauusm 00. vommouamv:0ouuemnu0000 m0. um0:swoc 05. m0nmu0oxo:E0mu 00 o UH OOIEHwbw codewum> 0muoH $00.0 oucm0um> ace-sou $50 . m NJ000nau0uxm 0 Hauumm NO. QflfififiawwlflflwHDUmwa 05.: 0mu0u:0m:mmu0ou N0.: ousmca:uc0000coo aucm0ue> 0suoa $N0.0 ouce0ua> coaeoo $00.00 0 HOuomm Ammaaam may 20 mammwzw:a ammozoov mmoaoam amaaaomH zo oanaoa museum ammmon oz~3omm mHmwa 05. 0nu::>mmo 00. U0um0a0mmom:00un0a0umo puppappp sauce ass.» oucm0ue> aoeaoo $00.N0 am0a0uno 0 nauomh up. pp0-poom 00. ausooma0:mu:umm 00. uO0umwc0:HO0uuaam 00.m0nmuuowaoocsno0nmuu00aoo oocm0um> 0muOH $00.00 muom0um> noaaoo $00.00 mmocm0nmuu00800 N acuumm 00.: ous00mm:mmooosm 05.: mmo0oma:0=moms 05.: ue0amoacs:um0smom 05.: u0w0ca:u0m0 00.: a500umm:msouoasn oucm0um> 0muOH $00.00 ooam0um> coaaoo $00.0N Nu0>euo 0 nouomh 00.: mwcmuum:0musumc 00. 0008a:00um0 moam0um> 0muoa $00.0 oucm0um> coaaoo $00.0 5 nouomm N0.: m300uam:msouoass 00.: 00eu0m:00mummcs 00.: puppopaoe:emuupmnu;m00 moam0um> 0muoH $00.0 oocm0um> coeaoo $00.5 mnmcu>0mneumua 0 HOuomm N0.: o0nm0uomaa:m0nm000m N5.: 00:00uoaoca:0aa00uoam OUdGflHQ> 0¢uOH NoN.m ouam0uu> coaaoo $50.0 0 wouuum N0.: uamumamms=:ucmummmm 00.: 0000080060:Muo0afioo N5.:m0nmuu0voumcs:e0nmuo0vmud uuam0um> 0muOH $00.0 muflwwuw> £08500 NNN.00 ~0000ppuquoum 0 apnoea 00.: nwsou:um0cmu 00.: eum>um:ucm0cm0 05. umao00om:umvmm0 55.: 0nm::5mme oucu0ue> 0wuoa $05.0 mosm0um> aoaaoo $00.00 mmmcnwaoa 0 Hauomm . 0090mo=a=< mo mamomm--w aamozoov mmoauem auaaaoma zc qunaoa museum ammmeHz ozHaomm mHmss0ummoc:u>0u0mom 50.: o0um0a0mmon:o0um0a0umo 00.: wmcmu:0exm0mu 05.: 00300m0v:0mx00 05.:00nmuu00aooaa:o0nmuuomaou eucawuw> 00009 $00.00 moam0ue> coaaoo $00.00 mmmcw0nmuuomaoo MIHOuumm N5. 0wuoaa0:0muoa N5. 0:0000:0c0ummumucu 05. 0000000uww:muuoc0m «a. Appsp-00pm 55. 00maum:um>w0o 55. 000:0000 55. mmm0suuoa:o0nms0m> 05. 0000mmnn0swww: 00. e xmms:0couuw 00. m0nmu0muvc::m0nmu0muv 00. mm0um:m:uu muce0ua> 0muoy $00.0N oocm0um> coaaou $00.00 NSHHMppppo 0 pouupp :wmocwc0scm0 59 00 .: 0000EHI00008 QUflQHHfi> HQUOH NNW.¢ 00000u0> 003300 $00.0 0 ~00000 00.: 000000000:3000 00. 00000uoauaa:00000uoaa 0000000» 00009 $00.0 0000000> 005500 $00.0 00000000000M 0 nouu0m 50.: 00:00:000000 05.: 000>0m:0000000 05.: 0000:0000 00000u0> 00009 $00.0 00000u0> 008800 $05.0 000000009 0 HOuUMM 00. 0000030000:0uo00800 05. 000:000: 05. 0003:000u00 05. 0000uum:00u=u0: 00000u0> 00009 $00.00 00000u0> 008800 $50.00 u=080000uugw m MOuomM 0 50.: munau:0000 00.: 000au:0mu00 00.: 000018003 00.: 00000000000:0000u0000 05.: ‘ 0000000:000000 05.: 0>0u0000:0>0u0000 00.: 000-coow .0000000> 00009 $00.00 00000u0> 008500 $0N.0N 0000000000.: N 000000 :00000000000 05. 0000:0003:0000000> an. 00up0e0pmpa-oaupfisfiuao 05. 00000000:0u0000 o0. 00000000:uo000000 00. 00:00:0000000 00. 000000:00000mcou 00000u0> 00009 $00.0N OUGQHHMQV Gog—08 ”mm-HM 0000usmm¢ W nouomM E sun Zhe facl Judg 813, relal Btruc re1m the fa 6O labeled Morglity, Rationality, Uniqueness, ggcitability, §gciability, Togghness, and Taggibility, with one factor unnamed. Since certain factors appearing in the factor analysis results obtained across all concepts and subjects (Universal factors) tend to Vappear with some regularity from concept to concept, the decision was made to utilize the Universal factors in the development of the instru- ment to evaluate self-concept. Even though concept-scale interaction is evident to an appreciable extent even when all precautions have been taken to ensure semantic stability by careful choice of concepts and definition of the perspective from which the rating should be made, there are substantial reasons for choice of the Universal factors for further study. The first three factors isolated in the analysis overallcOncepts serve as an excellent summary of the factors isolated on the specific concepts. These factors (Qapability,‘ggnuineness, and Toughness), or variations of them, are revealed quite consistently across all the analyses. Except for specific factors for individual concepts the Universal factors appeared to provide a convenient way to summarize the semantic structure revealed from concept to concept. There are also certain statistical reasons for choosing the Universal factors to be employed with the concepts. If each concept were to be judged only on the factors and scales derived from its own factor analy- sis, the semantic structure of the concepts would differ as the factor relationships varied from concept to concept. If the factor-scale structure of the concepts differed then questions regarding concept relationships could not be satisfactorily answered. Utilization of the factors and scales will enable statistical comparisons between 61 subjects or groups on the same concept, as well as making possible statistical and graphical evaluation of concept relationships. The Test Instrument As a result the following factors and scales were chosen from the Universal analysis (Table 13) to be utilized with all concepts in the subsequent study. The measurement instrument was built in the manner previously described on page 42. Each concept was placed at the top of a page in capitals preceded by the appropriate carrier phrase. The above scales were arranged beneath the concept in random order with polar direction also determined randomly. The instrument, as administered, is presented in Appendix B. It should be noted that additional scales beyond those listed were derived from the specific TABLE 13 FACTORS AND SCALES CHOSEN TO BE EMPLOYED WITH ALL CONCEPTS Factor 1 Capability Factor 2 Genuineness usefulwuseless true-false valuabledworthless sincere-artificial success-failure moral-immoral Factor 3 Toughness tender-tough lenient-severe easy-hard factor analysis for the concept involved and represent one or more specific factors in addition to the Universal factors. They were in- cluded before the decision was made to restrict the evaluation of 62 self-concept to the Universal factors. Each test was contained in a txine by twelve inch plain manila envelope that could be sealed shut when the test was completed and replaced. An appropriate cover letter was included with each test. These letters will be discussed more fully as the various subject populations are discussed. Study of Self-Concept The semantic differential instrument was developed to be utilized in_a study of the self-concept of hard-of-hearing adults. The review of the literature suggests that adjustment problems are prevalent among hard-of-hearing adults, and that certain adjustment modes are available to the physically handicapped. It has been theorized that unless one specific mode of adjustment is utilized, the result would be devalua- tion of self. Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the selfvconcept of a population of hard-of-hearing adults as compared to the self-concept of normal hearing adults. It was hoped that tapping the phenomeno- logical self would provide information consistent with the adjustment model as presented, and would serve as an initial step toward the refine~ ment of a test of self-concept that could be utilized clinically to evaluate the adjustment problems of the adult hard-of—hearing. Subjects To meet the purpose of this study it was necessary to determine whether the attitudes expressed by the hard-of-hearing were different from those of a normal hearing population. To evaluate these 63 relationships it was necessary to utilize an experimental group of ‘hard-of-hearing adult subjects and a control group of normal hearing adult subjects. The experimental group consisted of 105 people within the age range from twentywsix to eighty-seven. They had all ben aduiolog- ically evaluated at either the Michigan State University Speech and Hearing Clinic, the Hearing and Speech Department of the Rehabilitav tion Nbdical Center located in E. W. Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, or the Hearing and Speech Center of Grand Rapids, Michigan. To ensure that the subjects acquired their hearing loss as adults, the subject population was further restricted to include only those acquiring a hearing loss since the age of eighteen. The decision to include any person as a subject was determined by their recollection since no other suitable means was available for ascertaining the duration of loss. The subject population was further restricted to include only those whose audiometric test results indicated a hearing loss prim- arily sensori-neural in origin. Sensori-neural was operationally defined as a hearing loss characterized by diminished auditory acuity for pure tones for both air and bone conduction, with an air-bone gap of not more than ten decibels at 500 cps and 1000 cps. Only those individuals having sufficient hearing loss to interfere with communica- tion were utilized as subjects. Since the amount of communication difficulty could not be directly inferred from results of pure tone audiometric testing or from the speech reception threshold or speech discrimination separately, the criteria for choice was a Social Adequacy Index score of seventy-five or below. The Social Adequacy 64 Index score is a measure based on the results of speech audiometry which represents the degree of handicap so far as hearing and under- standing speech are concerned. According to Davis98 a SAI score indicates difficulty in communication under certain conditions. Dif- ficulty increases as the SAI value becomes smaller. The SAI criterion value was determined by utilizing the binaural free-field speech recep- tion threshold using recorded CID w-1 spondaic word lists, and discrim- ination score using recorded CID w-22 PB words administered at SRT + 40 db or at the maximum intensity limits of the audiometer, whichever was less. The experimental subject population that responded on the semen- tic differential is summarized statistically in Tables 14 and 15. Dis- tributions according to sex, age, amount of education, amount of hearing loss, and proportion using hearing aids are presented. Inspection of the data of Table 14 reveals a fairly normal distribution of subjects as a function of amount of education. Seven per cent of the population had six or less years of education, twenty-five per cent had between seven and nine years, thirty-seven per cent had between ten and twelve years, twenty-seven per cent between thirteen and sixteen years, and six per cent had more than seventeen years or more of formal education. The distribution by age appeared skewed in the direction of the older subjects. The median age was 59.46 years. The experimental group was evenly divided into two groups: those who utilized a hearing aid; and those who did not (Table 15). The median Social Adequacy Index A 98H. Davis, ”The Articulation Area and the Social Adequacy Index for Hearing," garyngoscope, S8 (1948), pp. 761-778. 65 TABLE 14 SUMMARY OF HARD-OF-HEARING GROUP PARTICIPATING IN SELF-CONCEPT STUDY INDICATING THE NUMBER OF SUBJECTS BY AGE, SEX, AND AMOUNT OF FORMAL EDUCATION Age 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 '80 + Amt. of w , r Y . V Education M F M F M. F M F M F M F M F Total 1-6 years 1 2 1 2 1 7 7-9 years 1 l 3 4 7 l 5 2 25 10-12 yrs 2 1 3 2 5 1 5 7 1 3 l 4 4 39 13-16 yrs 1 l 2 3 2 3 4 2 4 l S 28 17 + yrs 1 l 3 l 6 Total 3 2 4 4 9 4 12 16 15 9 10 12 4 105 Total per age group 5 8 13 28 24 22 TABLE 15 NUMBER OF HARD-OF-HEARING SUBJECTS UTILIZING A HEARING AID AS A FUNCTION OF AMOUNT OF HEARING LOSS DEFINED BY SOCIAL ADEQUACY INDEX MW 0 Hearing Aid _f Social Adequacy Index 7 users 0-15 16-30 31-45% 46-60 61-75 Total Yes 6 3 ll 11 21 52 No 3 3 8 19 20 53 Total 9 6 19 30 41 105 66 was 54.54. The experimental group consisted of fifty-three males and fifty-two females. The decision was made to obtain semantic differential judgments from a control group half the size of the experimental group made up of normal hearing adults matched with the members of the experimental group in terms of the following variables: education, age, and sex. The attempt was made to maintain the same distribution of age, sex, and amount of education as exhibited in the experimental group. If this could be achieved, then statistical comparisons could be made between the two groups. Table 16 contains the statistical summary of the control group. TABLE 16 SUMMARY OF NORMAL HEARING CONTROL GROUP PARTICIPATING IN SELF CONCEPT STUDY INDICATING THE NUMBER OF SUBJECTS BY AGE, SEX, AND AMOUNT OF FORMAL EDUCATION Age 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 80 + Amt. of Education M F M F M F M F M F M F M E Total 1-6 years 0 7-9 years 1 2 l 4 10-12 yrs 1 1 3 2 4 3 5 4 l 1 1 26 13-16 yrs 1 1 2 5 1 1 4 3 2 2 22 17 + yrs 1 1 2 Totals 2 2 3 4 9 5 7 10 3 3 1 4 1 54 Total per age group 4 7 l4 l7 6 5 1 67 Some differences in the distribution of the age, sex, and educa- tion variables can be observed when compared to the total experimental group. The control group consisted of fifty-four normal hearing people, twenty-nine females and twenty-five males. The distribution of amount of education is skewed toward the higher levels of education with no subjects in the one-to-six year level. The distribution of age also differs from the experimental group. The median age was 52.08 for the control group, which reflects a decrease in the skewness of the age distribution. As a result of these differences in distribution of the variables utilized to match the control subjects with the experi- mental subjects, comparison between the two groups was not possible. Therefore, in all subsequent presentations of data comparisons will be made only between the control group and the equal sized group of experimental subjects to whom they were matched. The intention was to utilize control subjects who had "equal" amounts of education and age. Since "equal amount of education" can- not be assured by matching the number of years of formal schooling, it was decided to break the years of formal schooling down into periods and to match on this basis. The effect of a given number of years of formal schooling is variable, depending in part on achievement, native intelligence, post-school life experiences, and the quality of the school system itself. As such, it was felt that no less precision in matching would be obtained by period grouping than by precise matching of number of years attended. The following five groups were chosen to serve as the basis for matching subjects in terms of amount of education: (1) one-to~six years; (2) seven-to-nine years; (‘4’..l ul 1 68 (3) ten-to-twelve years; (4) thirteen-to-sixteen years; and (5) seven- teen or more years. There is nothing absolute about the number of years lived. That there are different physical and mental growth rates to maturity and different points and rates of aging or decline are obvious. As such, it was not felt that any greater precision in matching would be achieved by obtaining control subjects of the same chronological age, as would be gained by matching within a six year age span from the given chronological age of the experimental subject. As a result the control subjects were chosen so that their age was within plus or minus three years of the person to whom they were being matched. Procedure The semantic differential instrument was administered individ- ually to each of the 159 subjects (105 hard-of—hearing and 54 normal hearing people). The test was administered to the entire hard-of- hearing population before any data were collected from the control group. People meeting the criteria for inclusion as experimental sub- jects, i.e., onset of loss after age eighteen, sensori-neural hearing loss, Social Adequacy Index score of less than seventy-five, were asked to participate in this study. A test booklet was given to them. Each booklet contained a cover letter which explained the purpose of the study and outlined what was being asked of them. This letter is located in Appendix C (Letter #1). The subjects were obtained in one of two ways. Some test responses were obtained as the hard-of—hearing people came through hearing evaluation services of the three clinics 69 mentioned earlier. Twenty per cent of the subject population were obtained in this manner. Some subjects were obtained by reviewing the files of the clinics to derive a list of people who met the criteria. These people were contacted by telephone and asked if they would be willing to participate in a research project. Those that indicated they would participate were administered the test either at their home or at the clinic. Another twenty per cent of the total experi- mental population were obtained in this manner. The experience with I the instrument to this point indicated that the test was adequately self-contained with no further instructions required by the subjects in order to complete the task. Since the test, in addition, was self- administered, the decision was made to allow people meeting the criteria for inclusion as subjects to complete the test at home and return it via the mails. The list of prospective subjects derived from clinic files was enlarged to include people not living in the immediate community. The test booklet with the enclosed cover letter was mailed out to approximately 200 hard-of-hearing pe0ple. Of this number 31.5 per cent (sixty-three people) responded by completing the instrument and returning it. Thus, most of the experimental subjects were volunteers. The effect of this on the group self-concept is un- known,as is the representativeness of the obtained self-concept of the hard-of-hearing in general. Following the completion of the data gathering from the hard-of- hearing population, the test was administered to the normal hearing control group. A list detailing the required characteristics of each normal hearing subject was drawn up. This list consisted of 105 70 definitions (age, sex, amount of education) of peOple--one per experi- mental subject. As normal hearing people meeting the criteria for matching were found, they were asked to participate in the study. They were given the same test booklet to complete as the hard-of- hearing subjects. The cover letter, however, was different. It is presented in Appendix C (Letter #2). Eighty per cent of these sub- jects completed the test at home and mailed or otherwise returned the instrument. An exact count of the normal hearing subjects who refused to complete the test is not known. This occurred as a result of the different circumstances surrounding their inclusion as a subject. There were no ”clinic” files or other means of compiling a list of prospective subjects from which a percentage of responses could be computed. The location of these subjects was accomplished by asking questions of colleagues, neighbors, etc., regarding themselves, their friends, relatives, acquaintances. In many instances the contacted person did not have certain information regarding the required criteria and had to ascertain whether the friend, relative, etc., met the criteria. In the process of doing this, it was assumed by the investi- gator, that certain prospective subjects excused themselves from participating. The indication was that the normal hearing control group was also substantially made up of willing volunteers. Bgliabilityfiof Measurement As indicated by Osgood et 81.99 reliability statements may be made about individual scales, about factor scores, or about concept _ 99Osgood, Suci, and Tannebaum, op. cit., p. 126. 56( 71 meaning, with regard to the semantic differential. Cronbachloo indi- cates that reliability may be measured utilizing test-retest methods (coefficient of stability) or by utilizing two forms of the test (co- efficient of equivalence). Thorndike101 states that reliability statements may be made in terms of absolute consistency (standard error of measurement) or in terms of relative consistency (correla- tion coefficient). The number of possible ways of evaluating reliability can be seen to be large in the present case. In an attempt to obtain as many estimates of reliability as possible, the following procedures were followed. ‘ A measure of relative consistency over time (coefficient of stability) was obtained by re-administering the test to a random sample of the hard-of-hearing experimental group. There was a three month lapse of time between the first test and the retest. The ex- perimental subjects were numbered from 1 through 105. A table of random numbers was entered and the first forty numbers encountered (without replacement) within those limits indicated the subjects who were asked to repeat their judgments. Each of these subjects was supplied with a new test booklet, set of instructions and a cover letter (Appendix C, Letter #3) indicating the purpose of the task repetition. Thirty-two of these people returned the completed test. The test-retest correlation coefficient was computed between mean 100Cronbach, op. cit., pp. 136-142. 101R. L. Thorndike, ”Reliability," Educational Measurement, ed. E. F. Lindquist (Washington: American Council on Education,1951), pp. 560-561. ' 72 concept scores (across all scales and factors) per subject. This yielded an estimate of concept reliability over time. This procedure was accomplished for each concept. A measure of absolute consistency was also derived from this test-retest data. The standard error of measurement, a method some- times utilized to define absolute consistency, was not employed because of ambiguity of interpretation which is derived from its relationship to the subject's "true" score. Osgood et a1.102 has employed the average error of measurement as a means of investigating reliability. The utilization of a measure of this type makes it possible to make statements in terms of the unit of measurement involved. They report, however, that this method still does not "provide us with a set of confidence limits beyond which we could say that a deviation is sig- nificant."103 They go on to say: Perhaps the most useful way of treating our test-retest data is in terms of the number of responses which yield absolute deviations of each given magnitude. If a subject-item matrix is formed and the cells of this matrix are filled with the obtained absolute deviations of each subject on each item, the number of instances of each size deviation may be counted. If subjects and items are considered to be representative, than statements regarding the probability of obtaining deviations of certain size can be made.104 This procedure was followed by computing the absolute deviations be- tween test and retest for each factor for each subject. This provided an estimate of factor reliability over time in scale units that 102Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum,op. cit., pp. 129-132. 1031bid., p. 132. 104Ibid., p. 132. 73 provided a means of making probability statements about degree of con- fidence with which a conclusion could be made that a given change on a factor is significant. The third estimate of reliability employed was a measure of rela- tive consistency. A coefficient of equivalence was obtained for each factor of each concept across all hard-of-hearing subjects. The same procedure was accomplished across all normal hearing control subjects. The internal consistency procedure employed was as follows. The three factors that were employed to evaluate each concept were each represented by three scales. The three scales representing a given factor are, connotatively, synonyms to the extent that their loading on the factor is "high” and ”pure." The fact that the three scales are correlated with the factor indicates they are intercorrelated to an extent that makes the development of an equivalent forms test possible. An equivalent forms test was developed by using one of the scales of each factor as an item on one form of the test and another scale of each factor as the item on the other form of the test. Thus, a split-half method was employed that made possible the determination of a coefficient of equivalence for each factor of each concept. The obtained correlations were corrected for length with the Spearman- 105 Brown formula. Two scales per factor were chosen to be employed out of the three scales available. Since the three scales measuring each factor differed in their loading on that factor the decision was made to obtain a conservative estimate of reliability with this method. F losThorndike, op. cit., p. 581. 74 This was accomplished by choosing the scale having the highest loading for one form of the test and the scale having the lowest loading for the other form of the test. Table 17 lists the scales utilized to index each factor on the two forms. The criterion values were the raw scores per scale per subject. TABLE 17 THE SCALES OF EACH FACTOR UTILIZED TO DETERMINE EQUIVALENT FORMS RELIABILITY WITH COEFFICIENTS COMPUTED BETWEEN FORM X AND FORM Y M j ‘ Factors Forms I II III X useful-useless true-false tender-tough Y success-failure moral-immoral easy-hard Apalysis of_the Data The data derived from ratings on the semantic differential con- sist of numerical values of from one to seven along each of three in- dependent dimensions. Thus, an individual's semantic profile of a concept can be given as the median scalar value for each dimension. Quick observational comparisons between concepts are not possible unless a "measure of relation that takes into account profile covaria- tion and the discrepancies between the means of the profiles, thereby 106 reflecting more fully the information available in the data" are utilized. Since three dimensional space is involved in this situation -__— 106Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, op. cit., p. 191. 75 such a measure is provided by the generalized distance formula of solid geometry, D = V :2 d2, 107 where d is the difference in allocation of two values on the same dimension or factor. This value, D, indicates a difference in meaning between concepts or scales or subjects and re- flects the distance between the two positions in space. Since the distribution of D is unknown and not assumed to be normal, the recommended tests are non-parametric procedures. In the case of raw score data obtained as above, the usual t-test methods could be applied to the means of the independent dimensions in com- parisons with other concepts, if it could be demonstrated that scale judgments were normally distributed. This generally does not happen, as Osgood g£_gl,108 indicate that examination reveals that the seven scalar alternatives tend to be utilized with almost equal frequency. Therefore, the best estimate of central tendency is the median and the Statistics of choice with raw score data are non-parametric and applied to each independent dimension. The following null hypotheses were derived to be evaluated upon completion of the data gathering process: 1. There are no significant differences between the hard-of- hearing subject's ratings for each concept and the normal hearing control subject's ratings for the same concepts. 2. There are no significant differences between the distances between any two concepts in three dimensional space of the hard-of- hearing subjects as compared to the normal hearing subjects, i.e., M 1071 1a., pp. 85-104. 1081bid., p. 85. 76 the normal hearing subjects do not perceive FRIENDS closer in meaning to MYSELF than do the hard-of—hearing subjects, etc. 3. There are no significant differences among median concept ratings within the hard-of-hearing group as a function of age, sex, or amount of hearing loss. The statistical procedures utilized to test these hypotheses were as follows: Hypothesis 1. Since these analyses involve data obtained from A matched subjects, the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test was utilized to test for significant differences. The criterion values were the median judgments taken over the three scales of each factor per subject, resulting in a total of twenty-seven tests. A one- tailed test was employed at the 0.05 level of significance. Hypothesis 2. Analysis of this data required tests of signifi- cance of differences between concepts. Since these analyses involve data obtained from matched subjects, the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed- Ranks Tests was utilized. The criterion values were the D's computed between any two and all pairs of concepts. A D matrix for the hard- of hearing group and one for the normal hearing group were produced, and a D from one matrix was compared with the corresponding D of the other matrix to determine whether these two values were drawn from the same population. This resulted in thirty-six Wilcoxon tests. A two-tailed test of this hypothesis was made at the 0.05 level of sig- nificance. Hypothesis 3. There are three questions to be answered in this case. The hard-of-hearing experimental group were grouped according 77 to the three criteria: age, sex, and amount of hearing loss. The groups were then dichotomized producing two sex groups (male-female), two age groups (twenty-to-sixty years and more-than-sixty years), and two hearing loss groups (zero-to-fifty SAI and fifty-one-to-seventy- five SAI). The N's in the dichotomized groups were equalized by ran- domly eliminating nine subjects, thus controlling the other two variables when the hypothesis regarding the third variable was being tested. The limits of the age groups and the hearing loss groups were arbitrary and set only to produce equal sized groups. The two sex groups were then compared statistically to determine the effect of sex on self-concept. The same procedure was followed with the two age groups and the two hearing loss groups. The statistical comparisons were made for each of the three dimensions of Concept 1 MYSELF. The Mann-Whitney U Test was employed to test the hypothesis that the two independent groups were drawn from the same population. This resulted in nine Mann-Whitney tests. These significant tests were two-tailed and were evaluated at the 0.05 level of significance. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter is divided into five sections. The first three sections are devoted to the presentation of the results of the study relative to the hypotheses which were tested. The fourth section presents data on the reliability of the instrument, and a general dis- cussion of the results is presented in the fifth section. Differences in Self Concept Between Hard- Qf-Hearing and Normal Hearing Adultg Interest was focused on determining whether the hard-of—hearing group differed in median rating from the normal hearing group on each factor of each concept. The median rating over the three scales for a given factor was obtained for each of the fifty-four normal hearing subjects and their matched hard—of—hearing experimental subjects. The medians for each factor, across all subjects within a group, are pre- sented in Table 18. The possible range of the medians was from one to seven. On Factor I the ”capable” end of the continuum would have a one rating and the "incapable" end would have a seven rating. On Factor II the “genuine“ end of the continuum would have the one rating, while on Factor III the ”tough” end of the continuum would be the seven end. 78 TABLE 18 MEDIAN RATING ON EACH FACTOR OF EACH CONCEPT OBTAINED FROM MATCHED ADULT HARD-OF-HEARING (Top number) AND NORMAL HEARING (Bottom number) SUBJECTS Factors I II III Concepts Capability Genuineness Toughness l. MYSELF 2.83 1.44 3.28 2.30 1.70 3.37 2. FRIENDS 2.05 1.75 2.83 2.21 2.08 2.38 3. MY HAPPIEST SELF 2.40 1.66 2.04 2.16 1.53 2.02 4. MYSELF WITH A 3.62 2.18 3.20 HEARING LOSS 3.15 2.00 3.16 5. STRANGERS 3.50 2.62 3.80 3.46 2.75 3.66 6. MYSELF WITH A 3.08 2.21 3.39 HEARING AID 2.75 2.28 3.50 7. MYSELF IN THE 3.14 1.75 3.14 FUTURE 2.30 1.80 2.75 8. PEOPLE OF 2.42 2.31 3.80 AUTHORITY 2.22 2.28 3.86 9. MYSELF AND 3.66 2.32 3.80 FAILURE 3.41 2.36 4.04 Statistical Results The medians, as derived for the individual subjects, were placed in a table having fifty-four rows and two columsn for each factor of each concept. Thus twenty-seven of these 2 x 54 tables were produced. A Wilcoxon Matched-Pair Signed-Rank test was performed on each factor 80 of each concept. The procedure, as outlined by Siegel109 for use when N > 25, was followed. Since some evidence has been published indicating that the hard- of hearing might differ in self-concept from the normal hearing, the A assumption was made that if this were true the ratings derived from the hard-of-hearing would reflect more negative self-feelings. The following hypothesis was then tested: H s 0' there is no significant difference between the ratings for a given concept derived from the hard-of—hearing group and those derived from the matched normal hearing control group. H : the ratings by the hard-of—hearing group for a given concept are more negative than the ratings of the normal hearing control group. The test of this hypothesis was made at the .05 level. Since the direction of the difference was predicted, the region of rejection was one-tailed. .A difference score (d) was obtained for each pair of matched subjects. A negative prefix was added to each d in all cases where the hard-of-hearing subject's median rating was higher than his matched normal hearing counterpart. A positive sign was recorded for each d under the reverse conditions. The d's were then ranked accord- ing to their absolute value and the smaller of the sums of the liked- signed ranks (T) was obtained. If the statistical difference was in the predicted direction, I would be the sum of the ranks of the posi- 110 tive d's. When N ;>25, T is practically normally distributed with zero mean and unit variance, thus a table of the ncrmal distribution 1098. Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics (New York: McCraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956), pp. 79-83. 110Ibid., p. 81. 81 was consulted to determine the probability associated with the occur- rence under no of values as extreme as the obtained z's. Table 19 summarizes the results of the Wilcoxon tests performed on each factor of each concept. Inspection of Table 19 reveals that the null hypothesis of "no difference" may be rejected for the‘gppgy Elllfil factor of Concepts 1 (MYSELF), 3 (MY HAPPIEST SELF), 7 (MYSELF IN THE FUTURE), 8 (PEOPLE OF AUTHORITY); and for the Toughness factor of Concept 5 (STRANGERS). No other differences were significant, although the Toughness factor of Concept 1 (MYSELF) approached it at the .09 level. Thus five significant differences were found between the two groups of subjects and inspection reveals that in each case the alternate hypothesis may be accepted (since T is the sum of the positive ranks). The conclusions can be drawn that hard-of—hearing adults judge themselves to be less capable than do normal hearing adults; that hard-of-hearing adults judge themselves at their happiest as being less capable than do normal hearing adults; that hard-of-hearing adults judge themselves in the future as being less capable than do normal hearing subjects; that hard-of—hearing adults judge people of authority as less capable than do normal hearing adults; and the hard-of-hearing adults judge straingers as being tougher than do normal hearing adults. Graphical Results The ratings obtained from a subject on the three factors of a semantic differential serve to orient the involved concept in three dimensional space. The three dimensions of this space are defined by 2 8 800 0:0 00 9 00:00:: 00000000 9000 0000 u 00 + 0:9 .0000> u 00>0w 000 £003 0000000000 >0000000000 000000-00000 .03000 0>000w00 00 0>000000 0:0 00- .000000000 0000 0:0 00 00>000 50033 9 000000030 mm. 00. EN. «0. no. 00. mm. am. so. a 00.0 - am.o - ma.o - ma.o - 00.0 - m~.o - mm.o - mn.o - mm.0 - s n.~mn- o.Hmm- m.o00+ o.mom+ o.ame+ 0.000. m.~oe+ o.soe+ 0.000- 0 000 00 Nm we we as on as 00 an z an. 00. an. as. an. cm. 00. Ne. mN. a m~.o - mm.o - mm.o - o~.o - on.o - am.o - m0.o - o~.o - mn.o - s m.~me- o.Hme+ m.mee+ m.mme+ m.oae+ m.Hmm+ o.em¢+ m.»em+ c.000- a 00 me as me we as we as as 00 z 0N. soc. Noe. on. 00. ca. so. me. so. «as om.o - oe.~ - 00.0 - «n.o - ma.o - m~.0 - 00.0 - ~o.o - 00.0 - a . m.emm+ o.ooe+ m.mm~+ o.emm+ o.mmn+ o.mem+ o.o~m+ 0.000- o.mme+ *0 H on an as on 00 Na me we on 2 m 0 A o n 0 m N 0 0000000 NDOMU UZHMde Adzmoz mm9 n20.950mw UZHNdelholnddm um9 zmu39mm NUZMMMMMHQ oz 90 «Humm9omwm m=9 6209mu9 99mozoo :00” ac MOHUdfi =U20).114 Table 21 presents a 11111301., p. 136. 11211331., pp. 144-145- 113 114 Ibid., pp. 119-120. Ibid., p. 124. - 3mm: DATA FOR MANN-WHITNEY U TEST PERFORMED TO DETERMINE WHETHER SELF-CONCEPT DIFFERED AS A FUNCTION OF SEX, AMOUNT OF HEARING LOSS, 94 TABLE 21 AND AGE Factors Variab1es I (Capability) II(Genuineness) III(Toughness) Sex (A) n1 48 48 48 n2 48 48 48 U 1108.5 807 942 T 690 4773 934 z -.32 -2.63 -1.56 p* .75 .01 .12 Hearing T11 60 6O 60 Loss n2 36 36 36 (B) U 914.5 1040 988 T 690 4773 934 z -l.22 -.31 -.696 P .22 .76 .48 Age (C) n1 48 48 48 n2 48 48 48 U 1015 780 1076.5 T 690 4773 934 Z -1001- -2083 -056 p .31 .005 .58 *Two-tailed probability associated with the given 2 value. summary of the analyses relative to the effect of the age, sex, and amount of hearing loss variables on self-concept. The results show 95 that only on the Genuineness factor was a significant difference between groups found, and that the difference existed only with the sex and age 'variables (p a .01 and .005 respectively). Thus, the ratings of the hard-of—hearing subjects do not differ in terms of self-judged Capability or Toughness as a function of age, sex, or severity of hearing loss. In Table 22 are arranged the measures of central tendency which serve as a summary of the distributions of the two independent samples involved in each Mann-Whitney U test summarized in Table 21. Inspec- tion of the medians for the sex and age variables under Factor 11 TABLE 22 MEDIAN RATINGS 0N CONCEPT 1 MYSELF FOR EACH FACTOR AS A FUNCTION OF AGE, SEX, AND AMOUNT OF HEARING LOSS ._.-.._ -.__. , -A_ A_._,,_ Factors I II III Variables Capability Genuineness Toughness A(Sex) 1) male 2.46 1.58 3.10 , 2) Female 2.70 1.03 3. B(Amount of 1) 51-75 SAI 2.44 1.06 3. Hearing Loss) 2) 0-50 SAI 3.25 1.83 3.25 C(Age) 1) 20-60 yrs 3.00 1.45 3.36 2) 60 + yrs 2.43 l 04 3.25 (genuineness) indicates that the males judged themselves as less genuine than did the females-~the Genuineness factor consisted of the moral-immoral, true-false, and sincere-artificial scales--and the younger hard-of—hearing judged themselves less genuine than the older subjects. These differences were significant at or beyond the .01 1. In 96 level of confidence, as indicated in Table 21. While the hard-of- hearing differed from the normal hearing subjects primarily along the Capability factor, the hard-of—hearing differed among themselves on the basis of age and sex only along the Genuineness factor. The observation that men and the young of both sexes judge themselves as less moral, true, and sincere than women and the older people of both sexes, respectively, would appear to be consistent with expectation. These results are interpreted as providing evidence of the "face"‘validity of the semantic differential approach to the measurement of the phenomenal self-concept. lgstrument Reliability The test instrument was re-administered to thirty-two of the hard-of—hearing subjects three months following the initial administration to obtain information relative to the reliability of measurement. The self~judgments of these thirty-two subjects were evaluated with respect to reliability in three different ways. The methods and procedures involved in each of these evaluations will be discussed at this time. ggpcept Stability An estimate of concept reliability was obtained utilizing the Pearson Product-Moment coefficient of correlation to determine the relationship between the initial mean rating for a concept and the retest mean rating for the concept. The mean value per concept was obtained by determining the average rating over the nine scales representing the three universal factors. The obtained reliability 97 coefficients are contained in Table 23 along with the appropriate Ineans and standard deviations. These correlations range from 0.67 to 0.87 with the average correlation equaling 0.76. ~This particular instrument yields estimates of reliability consistent with those pre- viously reported relative to the semantic differential. The obtained coefficients were actually higher than anticipated when considering the length of time intervening and that the subjects were making self- ratings which might be anticipated to fluctuate from time to time. It would appear that the most stable judgments over time were those related to hearing loss (Concept 4), hearing aids (Concept 6), and friends (Concept 2). TABLE 23 CONCEPT STABILITY OVER THREE MONTH TIME LAPSE FOR THIRTY-TWO HARD-OF-HEARING ADULTS M I Mean Rating Standard Deviation Correlation Concepts Test Retest Test Retest Coefficient 1. MYSELF 2.69 2.64 .74 1.07 .72 2. FRIENDS 2.60 2.76 1.04 1.13 .80 3. MY HAPPIEST SELF 2.35 2.59 .91 1.09 .77 4. MYSELF WITH A HEARING LOSS 3.12 3.15 1.26 1.25 .87 5. STRANGERS 3.13 3.29 .97 1.02 .75 6. MYSELF WITH A ’ HEARING AID 3.05 3.09 1.22 1.15 .81 7. MYSELF IN THE FUTURE 2.85 3.03 1.16 1.25 « .69 8. PEOPLE OF AUTHORITY 3.22 3.12 .93 1.14 .67 9. ‘MYSELF AND FAILURE 3.27 3.25 1.18 1.14 .75 I Factor Stability_ An estimate of factor reliability was obtained utilizing the Pearson Product-Mbment coefficient of correlation to determine the 98 relationship between the initial mean rating for a factor and the retest mean rating for the factor. The mean value per factor per subject per concept was obtained by averaging the ratings on the three scales of the factor. This resulted in twenty-seven correlations-~one per factor (three) for each of the nine concepts. The results are contained in Table 24. Inspection of the coefficients by factor reveals that Factor I has the highest reliability across concepts, ranging from a low of 0.59 to 0.87 with a mean r = 0.73. Factor II showed the next highest reliability with the coefficients ranging from a low of 0.32 to 0.84 with a mean of 0.65. Factor III showed the least reliability, with the coefficients ranging from 0.43 to 0.73 with a mean of 0.58. These reliability coefficients, or at least the factor averages, appear consistent with the reliabilities quoted in the review of literature. None of the reliability coefficients reported in the literature were obtained on factor scores, therefore it was not possible to compare these factor scores with others. The decline in reliability, however, was consistent with expectation since the work of Osgood ££_gl.115 with absolute deviations indicated in- creasing deviations from Factor I to Factor III. Concept 7 MYSELF IN THE FUTURE and Concept 8 PEOPLE IN AUTHORITY appeared to be the least reliably measured concepts across all three factors. The particular reasons for this are not clear at this time and further study is warranted, although essentially this lack of higher reliability could mean concept instability or a change N IISOngOd: Suci, and Tannenbaum, op. cit., pp. 129-132. FACTOR STABILITY OVER THREE MONTH TIME LAPSE TABLE 24 99 FOR THIRTY-TWO HARD-OF-HEARINC ADULTS _ Factor I Factor II Factor III came?“ thc RT** 7* RT** T* R1335, Concept 1 r .87 .32 .43 MYSELF Mean 3.08 2.91 1.64 1.81 3.35 3.23 S.D. 1.20 1.37 0.67 1.10 1.19 1.04 Concept 2 4 .79 .61 .71 FRIENDS Mean 2.58 2.84 2.05 2.38 2.84 3.08 S.D. 1.28 1.28 0.88 1.16 0.97 1.23 Concept 3 r .76 74 .63 MY HAPPIEST Mean 2.68 2.89 1.89 2.09 2.49 2.80 SELF S.D. 1.24 1.30 0.87 1.19 1.07 1.22 Concept 4 4 .81 73 .73 MYSELF WITH A Mean 3.53 3.54 2.39 2.56 3.37 3.51 HEARING LOSS S.D. 1.57 1.63 1.35 1.37 1.35 1.12 Concept 5 r .70 63 .58 STRANGERS Mean 3.25 3.49 2.63 2.77 3.54 3.59 S.D. 1.19 1.16 1.10 1.33 1.18 1.00 Concept 6 r .69 84 .59 MYSELF WITH A Mean 3.15 3.19 2.58 2.53 3.46 3.56 HEARING AID S.D. 1.54 1.38 1.38 1.32 1.21 1.36 Concept 7 r .59 65 .51 MYSELF IN THE Mean 3.15 3.29 2.06 2.30 3.33 3.35 FUTURE S.D. 1.80 1.52 1.28 1.17 1.30 1.17 Concept 8 r .65 .68 .50 PEOPLE OF Mean 3.09 2.91 2.83 2.91 3.75 3.69 AUTHORITY S.D. 0.99 1.31 1.15 1.31 1.15 1.28 Concept 9 r 75 66 .51 MYSELF AND Mean 3.40 3.25 2.63 2.57 3.71 3.71 FAILURE S.D. 1.54 1.50 1.26 1.17 1.36 1.36 —-_ *Initial test. ** Retest in three months. 100 in attitude within the hard-of—hearing group with respect to these two concepts. Absolute Deviation Probability Statements The correlation coefficient summarizes a relationship or lack of relationship, but it does not provide information of immediate use when dealing with scores. To know that a test is reliable because a high coefficient is obtained informs one that subjects tend to rank themselves similarly from test to retest or on equivalent forms, but this information is not helpful when an investigator has a test score and a retest score for an individual and wishes to know whether there is a shift of meaning or whether the observed difference can be assumed to be measurement error. Information of this nature which allows probability statements regarding various factor differences from test to retest was obtained from the test-retest data. The absolute deviation in scale units from test to retest was obtained for each factor of each concept for each subject. A separate summary table for the probability statements was made for each factor across all subjects of each concept and for each factor across all concepts and.subjects. The data for the individual concepts are contained in Appendix D. The summary probability state- ments across all concepts and subjects are presented in Table 25. A frequency distribution of the absolute deviations was made and the per cent of responses for each deviation computed. Thus, in Table 25 it can be seen that twenty-two per cent of the thirty-two subjects had an absolute deviation of zero scale units on Factor I, etc. .nonnm menoeoon mmumanasuom cu moo an ounce mmmcmmwoondaw mafia 101 ooo. is ooo. eoo. moo. moo. o.o oHo. ooo. ooo. ooo. m.m «no. ooo. ooo. ooo. o.o mHo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ¢.m wno. ooo. ooo. moo. woo. «moo. o.o Nmo. «no. ooo. ooo. moo. ooo. o.o ooo. «no. ooo. ooo. omo. wHo. N.N omo. ooo. ooo. ooo. owo. ooo. o.N «no. ooo. mHo. moo. Now. ooo. ¢.~ uno. wHo. mmo. mmo. Hmo. Hao. m.~ Han. mmo. nmo. mmo. moo. Nmo. o.~ one. moo. can. mmo. can. mmo. N.H oon. moo. mmH. mao. mmn. moo. o.H mun. oao. own. nNo. «Ma. HHo. ¢.H ANN. moo. oNo. ooo. Hon. hmo. m.a mam. ,oNH. mom. Hen. mum. «ma. o.H Non. mmH. Ame. «an. mom. son. u.o mam. mmo. com. mno. Hem. «mo. o.o Hoe. eon. oom. «no. man. moo. o.o now. own. won. mea. mm“. eon. o.o ooo.H mmH. ooo.~ mom. ooo.~ mNN. o.o nonumn>mo momeoamom nonumn>oo nonconmmm cOHumn>oo nonconmmm newuan>oo noummno no stom mo noumono no Husom mo noumono no Hmsvm mo Ousnomnd no nunnnnanonm demo sum no nunnnnanona neoo nun no nunnnnunonm undo nom HHH nouoah . HH nouomm [I H neuomm llba'lu'l", Announnow one announce dam muonumo zm>Hu oszHwumxaou .mH as no so no so- as so uso>um-ueoseue .ma no om No- mN as- nN as useseoee=-nseaaoa .as on ~o on: oo ON- we no HecowuoeoesnamcoHuoao .oa we so s~ AN so- «u on monoumea-uuaouu .mH sn OH no no 0H: NH oh hunaouaanm .¢H sm Ma ss NH nw- ma can oncoucw-oafia .mH as no- mg on No ma mm vmsuweumfiaumucs .NH we go- no so ms- um os Hosuuuocfix .HH so mo no oo so- us an ousawswumnuousm .oH as so so. sa ma NH sh some-susss .m on mg mg mg nH: mm mm new-noon .m cm AH No: No no Ma Hm nosoHHowuuovon .m on as we no nu oo- NH ocwefiaounoefiaaomea .m sN ow can so: mH no: on gassenowuea .m as so me. No oo an we season-uu>oeu .s we so as «s we- HN os commousme-eouusoeuewsfi .m ms no: mo mm mm: mm ma assessauaeuoa .N as om No mm Hg- ms «s owesuum-amu=use .H «e H> > >H HHH HH H sausages can eunmocoo Ham amouu< ona¢Hom N¢ZHM¢5 an nmzHHz= .uawoa Hmaaoup e an vomuooum on uaoosm muaowuwmwooo omega .uouomw comm ou mason some mo oowumaouuoo onu weaumowvaw aueowowmwooo cofiumaouuou a ma manna men we moon 0:» a“ mamas: comm Gods ans nnfi owé $6 3 .3 moém somewhat, son-=00 wo unoo pom o~.mm sn.~ ow.~ os.s o~.n om.n sm.om oocewum> douOD mo memo Hum so mo no- Ha am: am mm manmuwwuvcanoanwuwmov .om mm ma ma ofi no- nu co o>wuewmcuo>wuwoon .ms so ow ma mm man ma «0 manwuuomaooesuoaceuuomaou .ms mm mm mN so mo- mm as sHenuuweouae=-usesuuaeous .ns ms sH mo sm mo: sN sm uwumwfiaumpAIUHumwaaumo .os 1* sm ow- no- co he- ma No emaouunueeuu .ms nu an 50 mg mw 00 no mm musmcaaucomwueou .ss no as an He no: cm on HaavumumSm .ms as so Ho Nan Nd- NN om mmoaoms.asmoms .Ns mm ma Hon No: mo na sh “cakewawnuouuomsm .as sn 8- no 3 3.. sm so US$632 .3 mm ow so- mm mm- mm ms vaoouEMma .am oh Ho: no OH: sau ma ow mmmanuuo3nufinmsdm> .mn on ma NH sN mo: am no muoamfiooawnouoanaoU .mm «o no No- om NN: sN no moxfiamavnvoxua .on MN no- co as AH- Ho- AH «soauum-msouosse .mn aw AM No ma men an em ucoummanesaucouomem .sn ms «0 scn HN no: oH do: mums-muss .mn ~n mc ma an co ma mm mouuuumoneouwmu .Nn mm mo so: mg no ma oh m>Hmwonuo>wuoe .Hn N: H> > >H HHH HH H Avonuwuuoov mMDHUDMHm moaoHZD 132 Ha so so- so- so- so- oa Ha- ao os so- . sss-ooos .os so «on mo- mo- mm- ma- mm so as so HH- xoo3-mcouum .mN ea ss- so so- on sa- as ss- so so ss- asssssssss-sssosss .ss so so- ao as- so so- as as- so- as as. «sass-sous .as sa oo- ss- so- so as as oo so. so ma- sashes-sassssusses .ss sa os- as so as so- so os- sa- so- ss- gasses-sass .ss os ao- so so so oa- om so- so- as on- sasssauxs-assu .ss sa so- on as- om os so so- ao Na oa- sss-aooss .ss sa so- ao- Ho- so- oa- os ao- so- aa so- amass-osxsssu .ss Na so- as- on. me. so so ss- as ss so- sasssoosaa-sssasuos .HN as ao so- sa- as so- so so ss so ms- ssssseou-sssao .o~ as on on- ss- so so so so- so as so assess-s>sasssssu .os os so- ss- so so so as ss- ss so so «tapas-assassa .sa sa on. so- so- so os so so- so as ss- ususoooso-ssasooo_.as as so- as- so ss so so as- so so- ss- assessoasso-Hsaosugss .sa sa as so as so- ss- so- as- as ss ss- sssosses-susoss .ss as as oo so- so as ss sa ss NH- sa- asses-sass .ss on Ho- so ss ss aa- me so- so- ms NH- ssesses-ossa .sa on so so- so ss- so- so so so so ss- sssuss-ssssssss .ss sa as- oa so as oo ss ss- on as on- asses-sass .ss ss ss- so «a- so- so- ms so- ms so as- susasss-sssouos .oa as so o~ os- as- as om- so os so- as- zoos-eosso .o os as me. oo ss sH- oo me so- so- ss- ass-sass .s sa so- so- so- ss- so so- so- aa om ss- cascades-assess .a sa as- so os- os su- «a- ms as so- so sasssass-sssasossa .s ss sa- os- so Ho Ho- so so- so as- so- Hosas-ssnss .s «a oa- os so- as- ss so so. ss as ss- season-ss>ssu .s os so so so ao so- ao on. as sa os- sssssuoss-sssssssssssa .s so on so so as ss- so on. so- ms os- asuoaas-Husoa .s sa ao- so on- as- so- oo so. so as os- ssssnss-ssussss .H x xa Haao HH> as > >H HHH as a Wallil-IH-fij- 133 .uawoo Hmaaoov a he movooouo on masons sucoauamwooo omega .uouosw sumo cu mamas some «0 cowumaouuoo onu wawumowvaw aucowowwwoou sawumaouuoo m ma manmu man no moon emu cw Hanan: meow oo.ooa as.s os.s Na.s ss.s sa.a ss.s ss.s oa.aa ss.sa ss.ss sussaas> soasoo so sass use ~o.ss ss.s sa.s sa.s Na.s ss.s ss.s oa.s so.s a.oa «.sa sussaas> asses so some ass «a ao- ss so- sa- ss oa sa- ss sa so- sassaassses-sassaasso .os as so- so ss as so sa- ao- so oa ss- s>asssss-s>aaasoo .as as os oo so- so- so so- oa as as aa- sasssaoaaooss-sasssuosaou .ss ss so as- so- ss so- ao- sa- so- aa ss- sasssoasssoes-sasssoassao .as ss oa s~ as oa- s~ aN- aN- sN so om- causasassmo-oassaaasoo .ss «a aa so- so- so- so- ss ss- ao so- ss sssos-assesa .ss aa sa as- oa- as- as- sa so- ss as as- masses-sssoasaou .ss sa so- sa oN- oo sa sa om om «a ss- aaso-ousss .ss sa so- Na sa- os- Na ss sa- ss so as- sssasss-assss: .ss sa os- oa oa- oa- oa Na Na aa so as- aoaassca-aoatsoos .as aa ss- ao sa- as- ao so- sa- so- ss ss-s xuas-assasss .os as oa- sa- oo oa sa- sa- aa- ss as as- sass-apes .as so nu- so- so- oo so- ss so- ss Na- ss- sssasssoa-sasssas> .ss ss so- so sa- Na so- aa oa- on as ss- sssaoaooea-sasaoeoo .as oa «a- «a- sa- so- aa so so- so- as sa- ssaaasao-osaaa .ss ss oo os- ao aa- so- sa- so- sa- as oa- ssoasss-soouoaas .ss as oa aa so aa so- so so aa aa aa assusoosss-sssasaos .ss sa ao- as- so oo ss ss- sa- so- so as. sass-asus .ss os sa- sa so- aa- aa so on ma. so Na- osaas-ousssasss .ss sa sa so ao so- oa- so ss- on Na- as- s>asssa-s>asos .as us x xa aaa> aa> a» o >a aaa aa a 131+ on sa- ao aa- oa oo- aa- aa- aa sa oa oss-ooos .oo as oo ao ao- oa- ao aa- so- oa oa ss sass-season .aa aa so oa oa- sa so- ss- so- so sa os asaoasasas-sasueas .sa os ao- oa oa- oo oo- sa- so oa on aa- amass-sous .aa os oa- ao- so aa- oa aa- aa- so oa oo snakes-ssasssusssa .sa os ao- aa so- aa so- so. so aa so oa “asses-sass .sa as ao os sa- so- oo so- oa- so so- so sasssauxs-sass .sa oa sa- aa so- aa oa- so as- ss sa aa son-oases .oa so ao ao- oa oo sa- aa- ao- as aa- aa amass-osxsasa .aa ss aa ao- ao so ao- so- ao so so as sassaooses-sassauos .aa sa oo oo- sa oo- so- sa- sa- oa oa- so ossoaeou-assau .oa oa sa- oa- aa aa- so- so oo aa sa sa aesaas-s>assaass .oa on so- ao- ao- so ao oa- sa sa aa ao- sus>ss-assaeoa .sa oa ao- oa- sa- so ao- aa ao ss oa oo asasoooes-asasooo .aa so so- as- aa- oa- sa- sa- oo- aa so sa- aseoasoames-aseoasoas .sa aa aa- ao oo- oo- sa- ao- oo- so oo- aa sasussaa-saouss .oa ss so- oa- ao aa- sa- oa so so- as ao- asses-aass .sa os so- aa- oa- sa aa- ao oo- oo ao- ao usessaa-oaae .oa os ma sa ao oa oo- so os- oa sa aa saunas-sasussss .aa ss so as ma oa so- oa- ss- aa so aa asses-seas .aa as oa- oo ao ao- so aa- aa- ao sa as saaaass-sssuoss .oa oa oa- oa- sa ao- oa so- sa- aa- oa so seas-auaso .o oa so- ao- so- so- oa- so- os- oa- oo aa ass-asse .s on ma. so so so- oo- oo- ao aa ao so passaaos-assssa .a ss aa- oa oa as so as oa- aa ao- ao- seaeaaoa-seaasssss .s on ma. ao- sa oa- aa ao as- so oa oa aasas-ssssa .s os ao- so ss so- so so- oa- os sa ao- oaosss-ns>sau .s os so- ao- oa oa so- oo- sa- aa sa ms summonses-ossassssssaa .o oa ao aa- sa- oa os- as- so oa oo oa asaoeaa.asuos .a so sa- oa so ao oo- oa- oa sa oa ss «saunas-assasse .a as x xa aaao aa> a> > >a aaa aa a onHfi—bm xgfib Hm azHfl—bo amn—EHmm-IN Emmozoo ho wgagm M089?" 135 comm .uaoom Haaooov m ha vuvmooun on canons muawooommmoo mmmnH .uouumm somm ou woman no aowuuauuooo on» wdouuowvao suGMooommmoo acoumHmuuoo a mo manna mau mo soon unu no umnabc comm oo.ooo so.s ss.s ss.s ss.s oo.s ss.s ss.s os.oo so.so ss.so mocsoos> coaaou so uaoo “so ss.ss so.s ss.s ss.s os.s so.s ss.s so.s ss.s so.oo ss.so suasous> ossou so some nos so so- so- oo ss- os- so- so- so os os monsoosooca-mossoosuo .oo ss ss- os- so so so- so- so- so. so ss s>oussma-m>ooosos .ss ss oo so oo- so ss- ss- so- so so so mossusooaooca-mosssuosaou .ss os oo- so so so ss so- so- os so so- sossuoosuusaa-aossuoosuus .ss os so oo so- so oo- oo- oo- ss oo oo- cosmoaossos-uousoaosso .ss os so oo oo- os- os- ss- so- so. ss so ssaou-oaocou .ss os oo oo os ss oo oo- ss- so so ss magmas-scososaoo .ss os so- so- so so- oo so oo- oo- os os ooss-susos .os ss so so so ss oo- so so- so os oo smoossa-oasos: .ss os so so- so- so so so. ss- os- ss ss ooosooao-uoouosas .os os oo os- oo so oo- oo so oo oo so soon-ssoosan .os so so- oo- so oo- oo- ss- so- so ss oo sooo-ausa .so ss so oo- ss os- os- so- os- os so ss ssuoouooa-mossaos> .so os oo- os- oo so so- os- ss- os so so mucosaouco-sooosaau .so so oo- os- so- oo- so- so- so so ss os ossoosos-soxoo .so os so- so oo- os- so os oo ss os so snooums-saouoass .so ss os- so oo- oo so so so os so- so uaosssssas-oaussoss .so os os- os- oo- so so. so os- so oo- oo- sumo-sass .oo os so- oo- os- so so so- os- oo so os- ssuou-oossuusou .so ss so- so- so oo- oo- oo so- so so ss opossss-o>ouus .oo s; x No ooo> oo> o> > >o ooo oo o 136 ss os oo os- so- oo- so os so ss ass-secs .oo ss so oo- so- so so so os so so sums-scoops .ss os os so- os- so so- so os os os omoUosouus-uuoucos .ss so so ss- so- oo- so ss so so oo ososs-oasu .ss os oo so ss oo- oo- so- oo so ss scones-scousssusoo .ss os so so- ss- so so so- ss oo ss Houses-sows .os os os oo- oo ss- oo- oo so oo- so mossuouxo-eoso .ss oo so oo- oo- so oo- ss os so os sum-sssas .os ss so oo- oo- so- oo- so ss so os «sass-ouxsoos .ss os so oo oo oo- so so- oo ss ss oossooomcs-oossooos .os ss so so- so so so- oo so oo ss sasaocou-usuoo .os oo oo- ss oo os so oo- oo- so so uaooos-o>ousoosu .so so oo- so- so- so so. so so os oo oum>os-u=uoaso .so os oo- so oo so- oo- so oo- os oo osoasoscs-usossos .so ss os so so- ss oo- so- so- oo oo- osaoouoauas-osaoouoaa .so ss so so- ss- so- so- oo so- so ss unsuomao-susoom .oo ss os- oo oo oo- oo oo so so ss susau-ooso .so os so so os- os- so oo- so ss oo- amosoao-sooa .oo ss so- os- so- oo- so so- so oo- so oosuss-oossssas .so ss so so oo- so ss- so ss so so oouau-ocoo .oo ss so- so- so- oo- oo- os so oo ss suaooms-ssuuoas .oo ss ss- oo so oo so oo oo oo- os zoos-oooss .s ss so- oo so os- ss- oo- ss so so “mo-osu: .s os so so ss so so oo oo oo ss H«soooos-soosuo .s os so. so oo oo- os so- oo- so- oo «cocoaao-oaoonossa .s os oo ss- oo so so so- oo- oo so oosam-ossso .o ss oo- so- oo- so oo- ss so so- ss sosous-uu>uoo .s ss so so so- so so- so ss so ss sassoooss-sousssouosoo .o ss oo so- os- oo- ss- oo so ss os osuoaao-ossoe .s so oo so so- so oo- so- ss os ss monsoon-osususc .o so so ooo> oo> o> > >o ooo oo o onH¢Hbm x¢ZHm<> Hm QMZHdfimo shdmm HmmHmm¢m MEIIM Humozoo ho HMDHODMHm MOHO coaaoo so sumo “so so.ss os.o ss.o ss.o oo.o so.o os.o os.s os.so so.os sucsoss> oases so some ooo ss so so oo- so so so so os os mosssomssas-mossoomss .oo os so- so so- so so so so ss oo m>oumssc-s>ososos .ss os oo- so so so- so- oo- oo ss ss mossouosaooas-oosousoseoo .ss ss so so os- oo- oo- oo- os so ss mosssoosmusaa-mosssoossss .ss so os os oo- so so- so so so os cosmosossms-oousoaosoo .ss so so- oo oo- oo os- oo so so so ssaoo-smscoo .os ss oo so- oo- oo- oo- so so- so ss shaman-ucmsoscou .ss ss oo- oo- oo so so so so so os ooss-sssss .os os oo- oo- oo- so. so- so oo oo os smoouss-ossuss .ss so ss- so so- oo os os so- so so soosmsco-soosusas .os os so so- oo- so- so ss oo- ss os soos-ssoosas .os os so oo so ss ss- oo- ss so oo sooo-susa .so so so- so- so so- so- so ss os so osmosouoa-sossaos> .so oo os- oo oo- oo- os so so oo oo sssosEooco-somossou .so ss oo- so- so- so so. ss so- os so smooosos-suooo .so ss so ss ss os oo- oo so oo so snoosos-ssoooaos .oo ss oo ss so- oo oo- so- so oo- so ocosssssas-scmsssss .so os so- so- so ss so- so- so ss oo- sums-ssso .oo ss ss so- so- so- so so so. so os smoos-osssausmo .so ss so so- so oo so- so so- so ss o>ossss-s>oous .oo so so ooo> ooo o> > so ooo oo o 138 so so oon nN mm: mo: no: so van-ooo» .om no no no oN so Nn- om- Ns saws-maouum .as no so: not os ans on: no: on owouououus-womucom .wm we mo oo no: oo own no oo mmomw-oauu .sN os oo so- ss oo- oo so- so scosos-scossooos=o .ss mu eon sou o~ mm: oo- no ow nowmcsuooaw .mm mm sN os- oo oo own oo no oopsuouxo-Somu .sN ss oo- so- ss so- ss- ss- os sum-sssss .os no no: sm- so oo oo- Nnu ss mmcmuuvuxsooo .NN on «on No mm on: mo: sou Nm oopsouomaa-monaooom .oN no No on- no so won nN- os oussmcoo-osuou .oN No no no- MN sN- Ho Ho: sN ocuoow-w>oumxosu .so on so- so so mo- so so: oo mow>wsuucoo=uo .oo no mo- no: mm on: on: as- on oaoaaooasnumoaooo .so we no ms Hon own can no: so: omcoouoaucsuow:0ouosw ooo no AH MN: on man oo on: we monummconwosoum .mH os oo ss- os so os- so- ss sumac-ooss .so as so: No: oo own no: oo- Hon cocoons-woos .mH on mo: mun mo so mo: so: ss nomomm-vomuwscs .No no oo oNu so can Nm- son on omaoo-vaox .oo nu aw HN Nu MAI Ho: No: on sundown-mmmuoom .oH ss so so so oo so- so- ss soos-ouoss .s so sN sm- as oo so: on: sm now-osuc .o on so No ow oon mo- Hs- mm omsoooow-ookuo .s on no so: as oo moi No No: «coaoauw-uuoosumua .0 Nn No so so so: No son on Howas-owomo .m no so: go NN onn non oo- ms voozuu-ow>0ou .s on NH: so: as no: man on: oo oosmwnamo-oouuwunuawoo .m mm MN: on: mm: no: Mn: NH: no Huuosfiwnomuoa .N ss so- oo so so- ss- ss- ss usdsuus-osoausa .o N: HH> H> > >H HHH HH H onH¢Hom xstm<5 Hm GMZHdflmo smmOA UZHm aoaaou so some ass ss.ss os.s so.s ss.s ss.s so.oo ss.oo ss.os mocsoss> omuou so some ass os so so- oo oo- oo- so- os mossuossscs-mossuosos .oo os os ss- oo ss- so- so- os o>osmsma-s>ooosos .ss ss ss ss- ss so- so- so- so mosmusosaouca-mossssosaoo .ss os ss ss- so- so- so- ss- oo sosssuosussaa-mosssoossos .ss ss so so- oo so- os- so- ss uossoaossss-uousoaouso .ss ss ss- so so ss- so- so- so- ssaou-soscmo .os ss oo so- ss so so ss- ss mosses-ucmsosaoo .ss ss so- os oo so- os- oo- oo ooso-sssss .os ss so oo oo. so- so. so ss smmomss-ossmss .ss ss os oo ss oo- ss- ss- os ooososao-soouosss .os ss oo oo oo- os- ss- oo- os soon-ssoosms .os ss ss so- so os- oo- so- os sooo-assa .so os so- so so so- oo- so- ss sssosssos-sosssos> .so ss so so. ss so- so- ss- so ssoosaouco-oomosaou .so ss oo oo- . oo . os- os- os- ss sosoosos-soooo .so so so- oo- so so- oo os- so snoosss-saougass .oo os so so oo- so- so- so- so samssssscs-oaasssss .so os os so- so. so. so- so- so sums-sass .oo ss . ss so- ss oo- os- so- so smsoo-smssoosos .so ss so oo oo oo- os- ss- ss o>ossss-m>osos .oo so oo> o> > so ooo oo o E 140 so oo oo so- so so ss- os- sss-soos .oo so so so so- so so so- ss- sass-scosss .ss ss so- so- so so os ss- oo- osooososss-mumUCos .ss ss so- ss- oo- ss so. so- ss- muons-sass .ss ss so so oo- so os so- so- scosos-scosssossco .ss ss so- so- oo- ss oo so- os- “oases-sous .os ss so so- so- ss oo so so- sosssooxm-aoso .ss os oo oo so- so so os- os- ssm-sssss .os so oo- ss oo oo ss ss- ss- amass-smxsoms .ss ss oo oo so- so so ss- os- mossooomca-mossouos .os os ss- so so- so oo ss- ss- sssasaou-ssmou .os so so oo so- oo so so- so- scsoos-m>osssoss .so so so- so- so- os oo- ss- oo mso>ms-s=socmo .so ss so oo- oo so- os os- ss- ss.oBoosts-ssosoono .so ss oo- oo oo so ss os- so- oscoooosmcs-oscooooas .so ss so- so oo- oo os ss- so- mssoomco-sssoms .oo so so- so oo- so so ss- ss- sssEs-oozo .so ss oo- oo os- oo so oo- so ssamsao-sooa .oo oo oo- ss os so- oo so- ss- sossss-sossssoa .so ss os so- oo- os os os- os- oosso-saoo .oo ss so- os ss- so ss so so- sosooso-sssooss .oo ss so- oo oo so- so so- os- acos-sooas .s os so- so so- so so so- so- pas-smug .s ss oo- os oo- so- so ss- ss- smsoooos-ssssmo .s so oo so- os- ss- so so os- ocoGoEQs-mcoosusse .s ss os ss so- so- so- os- ss- oosas-sssso .o os oo so so- ss os os- ss- sosass-ss>moo .s os so so- so- oo- oo os- ss- smsssssss-omsssmssssoo .o os so oo- oo os so so. oo- osuoaao-osooa .s ss so so oo- oo oo ss- oo- monsoos-osssuss .o s oo> o> > so ooo oo o 141 .ucooo omaooov a on vacuumoo ma vosonm mucoousmmmoo mswna .o0uomm some cu woman Sumo mo acouwomuuou Gnu mcouuowvao suconommmoo cooumawuoou a mo wanna mnu mo oven mou as Hwnaua scum ss.ss os.o ss.s so.s so.oo os.so so.os os.ss socsops> coaaou so some ass ss.ss os.o so.o os.o oo.s ss.oo ss.so ss.so socsoss> osooo so sumo pus ss so oo so so- so so- oo- uossuosmsca-aosssosos .oo so so so oo so oo oo- so- m>osssma-s>ooosos .ss ss oo- so- so so oo os- ss- sossssossooas-sossssosaou .ss ss ss oo- ss- ss so so. so sosmooossssaa-sosssoosmus .ss so so so ss- so os oo- ss- oossoaossms-uoomoaouso .ss so so so os os so oo- oo sssou-sosauu .os ss oo- ss so- so- os os- ss- shaman-sassoscou .ss ss so oo oo- oo oo so- ss- ooas-sssss .os os so os- so- so ss so- so- smuomss-ossmss .ss ss so- so ss- so so so- oo- oooumsao-uooossss .os ss so ss so- oo oo oo- oo- soon-sssosos .os os so so so- so ss oo- os- sooo-aoss .so ss so- so- oo so- os oo- ss- msmosouoa-sossaog .so ss ss- so oo- os so ss- so- sososeouao-mUMosaoo .so so oo oo oo so- oo os- so- smooosos-suooo .so so so- ss so oo- oo- so oo- snoosus-ssosoass .oo os oo- oo- oo- oo- so so- oo- “assassscs-scssssss .so os oo ss so- os so so- oo- sous-sous .oo ss ss so so- so- oo so- so. sauos-ssssosoms .so os oo- so so- os oo so- os- m>ossss-o>ooos .oo so oo> os > so ooo oo o ‘ *W‘nm 142 os oo oo- so- oo os ss- so sso-soos .oo so so so os- os- ss oo- ss onus-saouus .ss ss ss- so- os- ss oo so os osooososus-osooaos .ss os oo oo- so- so os ss- so «moss-oaks .ss ss oo- so ss- so so so- so scooos-saoosmuouco .ss ss so so- os ss so so- ss “oases-uoss .os oo so so- so- ss so oo- oo- oosssooxs-aosu .ss os oo oo- ss- os oo os- so sss-sssss .os so mm.- so NT sm o.o men so wmaou-ouxmowu .NN os so- oo- so- oo ss ss- so uossouosas-oossouos .os os oo- oo- oo- os ss os- so susasaoo-usoou .os ss so so- oo so- so so- so scsoos-o>ossooso .so ss so ss- oo- so so oo oo ouo>ss-sauooso .so ss so oo- ss- so os os- ss ssossosas-ssossos .so so so- oo- so- so- so ss os oscOososuas-osooosoao .so ss oo oo- ss- so ss so- os susussao-susuos .oo ss oo- oo- os- oo so- so- os songs-ooos .so os so- ss- oo- os os oo- so- mucouso-sooa .oo os so so- ss- so so ss- os oososs-sosusscs .so ss ss- ss- os- so oo so- oo ooaso-saoo .oo os so so ss- so oo- oo- os sosooso-ssuouss .oo os oo os so- so- so- ss- os zoos-xuoss .s ss oo os- so- ss so- oo- os ooo-use: .s ss oo so- oo- oo- so ss- oo ouzoooos-usssuo .s os ss oo oo so- so ss so saoaoaus-oaoosossa .s oo ss so- so- so oo- so- ss oosas-osuso .o os oo so- so- so os os- os sososs-so>sou .s ss so- oo so- ss ss so- so somsossos-sussssssssoo .o os so- oo- so- so so os- oo osoosuo-osooa .s ss so- so- ss- ss so so- so assasss-ososssa .o s: ooo o> > >o ooo oo o 205.28% gym-«so Wm owaamo soH< qugm < EH3 Engine Emozoo ho gnaw M0805“ .uaooo ouaouoo a on ououuuuo 0A voaozm mucwouowwmou smock .uOuuww sumo ou vowom nous mo oooumoouuoo moo wdouquvco sucooUowwooo acouMowuuou a so oonwu woo we moon was co hopes: scum oo.ooo os.s so.s so.oo so.oo os.so so.os so.os monsous> aoeaou so some sum so.o~ oa.s oo.o 0N.m soos oo.oo NN.oo om.so mucuouw> omuou we unwo Hum as so so- on- so so ss- on monsoosovcsuoonsuosoo .oo on NOI con no: mo on mm: mm u>ouuwo=no>ouomoo .ms os so so os- so ss os- ss sossuuooaoucs-oossuuosaou .ss os so so- so- so so oo- so- oossuuosuosao-oossuoosouo .ss ss ss os- so- so- os os- ss uousoaossos-uousoaouso .ss ss ms- so- no- so- so so oo- asses-ouncsu .as a) on no no mm: on Nn ms: ms uuomcauuaovowooo .ss so ss oo- oo- oo- so- oo so- ss ooas-sssss .os oo no so- os- so- so oo- ms ssoosso..-o=moss= .ss os ss so- so- so so so- ss ooouooco-HOoommas .os ss so- oo- oo ss so ss- os sass-sssosss .os ms so- «on oo so on os- so coco-sums .so ms so ss- oo- so oN so: ss ssuonuoo3-uoossou> .so on oo- so- so- oo oo mm: NN ouooafiooao-wuoooaoo .sm us mo- so- os- no on ms: ms uoxoosos-suooo .so Nn oo mot won co: co: oo- no- usoouuw-mnouoafio .mn os ss so- ss- oo oo os- oo- oassssssoo-ucousoos .so os No- os- so: so no so- no sumo-ssuo .nm mo No oo- on: on oN mm: mm vuuouavwonuowuu .Nm so so so- oo so so ss- os o>ossso-o>ouos .oo N5 HH> o> > >H HHH Ho H ososoooaooo s ossozoo ss oo- ss- oo so oo- so- so ss so- ooo-sous os oo- so- so so ss oo- oo so os- sass-scosss os ss- ss- oo os so so so ss os- osooososos-ousocos ss ss- so- ss ss oo ss- oo so ss- «sous-usus ss so- so- so oo- so- so- so so so- scopes-scousososao . ss oo- oo- so so so oo- oo so ss- gossas-soss os oo so- oo- oo- os so- so so os- mossuooxo-aoso os so so- so so so so so- os oo sum-sosss so so- oo oo ss oo ss- ss so so- snows-saxsouu ss so- so- os so os os- oo oo oo- monsoooscs-osooos os so- so- so so- ss so- os os os- osssssoo-osoou so so- oo so- so- so os- oo- oo- ss- scaoos-s>ousoous so os oo oo so ss ss- ss so so- s-o2,...s-sfi.ooso . ss oo- oo oo oo os so. so oo os- Hsoososos-usossos ss so- so- ss- so so ss- so- so oo osnoosoeuas-oscoouoau os os oo- oo- os oo so oo- ss ss- ossoosco-soauus so oo oo- ss- so- so- oo so- so- so so- sssau-ooss 1o os so so ss oo oo oo- so oo- so uscuuao-sooe os so so- oo ss so- oo os ss os- sossss-sossssss ss so- so- so ss ss so- so ss ss- osaoo-ssoo ss so- oo oo so so- oo so oo ss- usaooss-ssuooas os so- so- os- oo- so oo so oo so- zoos-oooas ss so so- oo- os- so- ss- so so so- pas-oss: ss oo- so oo os oo- so so so ss- H03oooos-oussoo os oo- so so so- oo- so so- ss os- scoaoaos-oaooaussa so ss- so so. so ss ss so- so os- oosas-osuso ss oo- oo ss- oo ss so so so ss- sossus-so>ooo os oo so- so so so so- so oo- os- ssssuusss-sosssossssoo ss os- os- so oo oo ss- ss so so- osuoaao-ossoa ss oo oo- so so so ss- ss so- so- ssasuus-osoassu so so ooo> oo> o> > >o ooo oo o zen—”HERO“ Nam-o; Mom aagmo $.55th moon. 2H mountains Boom—028 ho mggbgm ”oo.o.ofo 1&5 .uaooo omaoomo m %n vmvmoouo an vosoom mucwouowwmoo ommnH .oOuomw 30mm on women sumo we cooumoouuou you wooumoovao sucooUomwooo acouMomuooo a mo monsu was so soon man no smash: 30mm ss.ss ss.s os.s ss.s so.s ss.s ss.oo oo.so os.so ss.os sossoss> coaaou some uss ss.os ss.o so.o so.o ss.s ss.s ss.s ss.s os.oo so.so mucsoss> osuos some ass ss so- so- so- os oo oo so- ss oo- m>ousssc-s>ooosos .ss ss so- oo- oo oo so so oo os so- mossssosEOUas-sosashesaou .ss os so so- so so ss so- so so os- mossuoosmssos-mosssuosmss .ss os oo so so os ss so os so. so- uossoaossss-oossoaosso .ss ss oo- so- ss so ss os- oo so so sssos-sssams .os os oo so. so- oo- oo ss- oo oo so- mosses-ocmsosaoo .ss ss so- so- so ss oo so so os os- oogs-sssss .os ss oo so- oo- oo so so so os ss- smoomsa-ossssa .ss ss oo so- so so so oo so os ss- ooosssco-sooossas .os ss oo os- so- ss ss so so- oo ss- sass-ssoosss .os os so ss- so so ss so os os so- coco-ass: .so ss so- so- so- oo os oo- so so- oo- sssosssoa-mossaos> .so os so. so- so so so- oo oo- os so- sssosaouco-assosaou .so os oo- os- so so oo- so- ss oo ss- sssoosos-sssoo .so ss oo so- so so so so ss so os- snoosms-ssosoass .oo oo so so oo- so so so- so oo oo- scoossssca-oassssss .so ss so oo- oo- so so so ss so so- ssss-sssm .oo ss so- os oo- oo- so ss- so- so- oo- sssou-susssssss .so ss oo ss- so so os so- oo ss os- m>ossss-m>osus .oo so so ooo> oo> o> > >o ooo oo o I, 6' {ltd-"\«ll-br' v 146 os so so- so- oo oo so- ss sss-soos .oo os oo oo- so- oo- so so so sous-sooous .ss ss oo: no: No: no: no: so: ss omooomosus:mouocos .ss as so: so: oo so so: oo: ms moons-woos .so as so: oN: osu oo: oo «o: Ns scooos:saousmumu:o .ss as so: no: no so: so: so: so sousco-ooss .ss ss oo- ss- os oo- so so- oo- mosssouxo-aoso .ss ss oo- oo os- so oo- so- so sss-sssss .os so so oo: oo: oo: oo: os: so snows-soxmoou .NN ss so so: us: so- co sN: no mossouosc=:moswouos .os ss oN oo so so: no on. ss smsswaoo:osoou .os ss ss ss so: so: os so: oo scooos:w>ousxowu .so Nm oo: oo mo oo: as: so no: woo>us:u:oocuo .wo os so oo- ss- os- so so- so ososoosoo-usosoos .so so so: so ss- oo no so oo- osaooooasaa-oscooooEm .so as oo: sm: oo mm: mo: os: sm monommco:0o:ous .mo Ns so so: so ss: oo- on: ss ouoEm-ooom .so ss oo: ms: as: so: ss- ms: oo msamuco:uooa .so as so on: no so: so on: so somuom-oosussas .so ss so: oo oo: ms: Ns: os- ss owsou-ocox .oo ss oo- oo so- oo os oo- so oosooso-sssouas .oo so so- ss- oo so- ss os- so zoos-ouoas .s so so: so: oo: oo no: on: so owm:osm: .s ms oo oo so- so: ms oo so H03cooosLooEoo .s mm mm so: no: so: mm mo: no: mcocosww:uaoooowsa .s so os oo: os oo: no so- on oomas:mwuso .m ms oo oo- so no: no mo: ss soosus-nu>woo .s ss so os- so- so- ss- so- oo ssssmosms-sosusosussoo .o ns so so No no on: ss: ss osooaao:osooa .N ss so- so- so- so so so- so ssasuss-osssus: .o s; oo> o> > >o ooo oo o ZOHH¢HOM N¢2Hm<> fin nmszHmo sMHHmomhb< ho Homomm::w Hmmuzoo mo MMDHUDMHm moao season so sumo yum so.os oa.s so.o ss.o ss.s ss.s so.oo ss.os mucsoom> oases so ocuo sum os oo- so- so- oo: oo oo os monsoososos-sossuosus .oo ss on: so: No: No: ms so: sN o>oummmo:u>ouowoo .os ss . os oo so ss- oo- ss- so sons»nauseous-mossuoooaoo .ss so so: so: so: «s: so- No ms consuoosaooa::uoowuooowuo .ss ss oo- oo- oo so so ss- so uoososossss-ooosoaosso .ss ss oo- so: oo- oo- ss- oo: so noses-uosoou .os mw so so oo so: on: on no: so uuosca:ucooomcoo .ss .1 as No ow: no: ss: so so: so ooov-oosss .as as so: so: mm: ow: NN oo: ms osmooso:oomuso .Ns os so as so: so: on om: so scooumcouo0ouooos .os ss ms om: oo so no- on: so goon-onuosw: .os no so: so: ss: so: on: om: mo ooou:aus3 .so oo oo: oN: no: ms: oN so- ss ssuonuuosnuonsoow> .wm os so so so os- so- so. os ssoooaouco-uusooaou .so os so: so: on: so: so: os: no suxoosoo:voxoo .so No no: so: oo so: so: no: oo oncouas:sooooaon .mm sn sN sm: NN: NM: so: mo: mo uauomono:=:uoooumow .sm so no: on so so: ss: so so: oum£:oswo .mn no mo ss- os- so so so- os sooou-sunssuoou .so on no: so as so: on nN: no: o>ossuo:o>ouow .om N: HH> H> > >H HHH HH H Avooflouaoov w Homozoo 148 ss so- so- oo so ss- ss sss-soos .oo os oo oo os os . so- so sass-saosus .ss os so- oo so ss so- os osooososss-sssocos .ss os ss- oo- so ss so- oo msoss-ssss .ss os so so . oo- so os- ss soooos-saosssousao .ss so so so . so- os oo- oo uosscs-soso .os ss oo oo- oo- os so- so mosssouxm-soso .ss os oo- so- so- ss ss- os sum-sssss .os os so os- so- oo oo- os amass-ssxsous .ss os ss- oo so- so os- so mossouosas-oossooos .os ss oo- oo- so- so so- so sassscou-ussou .os so so oo ss- so os- ss scmoos-s>ousooss .so oo oo- so- os- oo- so oo- ssm>os-scsocso .so ss oo- oo oo- so so- os osossoscs-osoasos .so_ so so so oo so- oo so- osaoosoamcs-osaoouoau .so ss oo- ss- so- ss os- ss assesses-aunuos .oo ss os oo- oo- oo ss- so sssEs-ooao .so os so- os- ss- so os oo «masons-sooa .oo os ss- so- oo- so so- ss sossss-sosssscs .so ss os- ss ss- os oo- oo ousoo-saos .oo ss oo ss- oo- ss so- ss sssooso-ssmouss .oo ss ss- ss- so ss ss- oo zoos-sooss .s os so so- so- os ss- so “so-sass .s ss ss- so- oo oo so- so ,ss3Oooos-omssoo .s so so ss- so ss- ss- oo- «cocoass-scooaossa .s so so so- so oo ss- so - oosas-sssso .o ss os- so oo so oo- oo sossss-us>uou .s ss so- ss- so- so oo- os smsssosss-sasssmssssoo .o os ss- so- so- oo os- ss osuoaao-osooa .s os ss- oo- so ss so- oo «sassss-ossaosc .o so o> > >o ooo oo o ZOoHowHOM good; arm Qm2H coaaoo so some sum oo.ss so.s ss.s ss.o so.oo ss.so ss.os socsoss> ossos so some ass ss so- so- so- ss ss- oo mosssosmsos-sossoosms .oo ss so- so- so- oo os- so m>ossssa-s>ososoo .ss os ss- ss- so- oo ss- os sossoHOsEoocs-sossusossou .ss os so- ss- oo oo oo- os mosssoossoscs-uosssoosmss .ss ss so- oo so ss so- ss oossoaossms-ooosoaouso .ss os so- so ss- oo- oo- ss sssos-smssms .os ss so- so- so- so ss- os mossas-ocssoscoo .ss ss so- oo so so so- so ooss-sssss .os ss so- so os so os- ss sssosss-ossmss .ss os oo- oo oo so oo- os ooooosco-soosmsss .os ss so- so so- ss so- so xuos-sssosms .os os so- oo- oo- ss ss- so , sooo-assa .so ss so so- so- oo oo- os osmososos-oosssos> .so ss ss so- os- os ss- so mssosaooaosomosaou .so os oo- so so- ss os- ss soooosos-sssoo .so ss so- oo- so- so so oo- ssoouos-ssoooEss .oo «o mN: on: oo: No mm: No ucwosoomco:uoooaoom .sm os oo- so- ss- os- oo- oo sums-ssss .oo ss so so- ss- ss so- so smoos-omssossao .so os so- oo oo os so- so s>ossss-m>osos .oo. so o> > >o ooo oo o omuscoscmmo s oosozoo APPENDIX B TEST INSTRUMENT UTILIZED TO MEASURE SELF-CONCEPT 150 151 TEST INSTRUCTIONS (Please read carefully) 1. Remove the paper clip at the top of this page and separate this instruction sheet from the test booklet. 2. Notice that there is a sentence near the top of every page of the teat booklet. For example, the sentence on the first page is: How do I feel about: MYSELF. There are nine pages in the teat booklet, each with a slightly different sentence. 3. Notice that below the sentence on each page there are several scales (pairs of words that are opposites) with seven blank spaces between the two words at the ends of each scale. 4. You are to rate on every scale how you feel about the word or phrase in CAPITAL letters at the top of each page. In other words, you should rate how you feel about MYSELF on the first page, and how you feel about FRIENDS on the second page, and so on. ‘ 5. Here is how you are to use the rating scales: E X A M.P L B Let us take for our example the first page of the teat booklet. You are asked to rate how you feel about: MYSELF. If on the first scale you feel extremely superior or extremely inferior you should place your check-mark as follows: superior X : : : : :___:___inferior or superior : : : : : : X inferior If you feel guite superior or guite inferior you place your check- mark as follows: superior : X : : : : : inferior or . superior : : : : :_X_:___inferior If you feel slightly superior or slightly inferior, place your check- mark as follows: superior : : X : :_W*: : inferior or superior : :___: : X : : inferior If you feel yourself to be neutral on the scale, that is, neither superior nor inferior but right in the middle, then place your checkemark as follows: superior : : : X : : :___inferior 152 In this way you decide in which blank space on the first scale you should put your check-mark. Then move down to the second scale and place a check-mark in one of the blanks by deciding whether you feel you are extremely interesting or extremely boring, or guite interesting or guite boring, etc. Then complete the rest of the scales on the first page in this manner. 6. After completing the first page turn to the second page and rate-- How do.I feel about: FRIENDS-~in the same way, be deciding in which blank space your check-mark should go for each of the scales. 7. Complete the remaining pages of the test booklet by following the same procedure. IMPORTANT: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Remember. You are rating how you feel about the word or phrase that appears in CAPITAL letters at the top of the page. Be sure you check every scale for every page-- do not omit any. If you do not have a hearing aid, rate how you would feel on the sixth page. Place your check-mark in the middle of spaces, not on the boundaries. Never put more than one check-mark on a single scale. Do not worry or puzzle over individual items. It is your first impressions, or "feelings", that we want. How do I feel about: MYSELF superior_:_.__._.__.___:_inferior interesting_:__:__:_:_:_:__boring disliked __________ .__1iked severe___ _.__.__. _____ lenient false _______ true useless ____________ useful immoral__ _____:__:_.___._.__moral artificial___ __.__.__.___._:__sincere easy _____ :_ _hard worthless _______ valuable tough___:__:_:____:__:____:__tender success_____ _____. _____ failure tense___ _. _________ r elaxed cruel _______ k ind 1ighthearted_:__:__:___:__:___:__depressed happy__:_:_:_:__:_:_sad 154 How do I feel about: FRIENDS hard___:___:__:_:_:_:_easy interesting_:___:_:___:__:_:__boring weak__._._ _ __ ____:___strong useful_:__:__.__.__:____:___useless clear___.___. _________ confused 1enient__:___.___:__.___._._severe afraid__ __ _._ _ __ _unafraid unsociable_ __.___:____. _____ sociable true _______ false immoral__. _____ .__mora1 undesirable__:____._. _______ d esirable unsure__:___:___:_:_:__:__confident failure_:____:__:__:__:_:__success valuable_:___:_____:_:_:_:_worthless tender_:_:__:___:_:_:___tough sincere : : : : : : artificial How do I feel about: 155 MY HAPPIEST SELF easy . : ._____:____hard mora1____:___ __ __ _._ _iumoral tender____:___:____:___:__:__:_tough lenient____:_:___:___:__:___:____severe unpopular : : :___:___:___:_popular mild___ ___.____:___._____:____:___intense liked __________ d isliked sociable : : : :____:_____:____unsociable boring_____:____:___: : : : interesting emotional ' : : ° : : unemotional clever stupid useless ___:___:____useful calm_____ __:____:__:____:____:____excitable true ._ false worthless ________ valuable success failure sincere artificial 156 How do (or would) I feel about: MYSELF WITH A HEARING LOSS moral : : ' : : : immoral “fl“ unfairwr : : : : :___: fair worthless : : : : : : valuable ~”——_~—_ useful : : : : : : useless failure : : :___:___:___:___success tough___:___,___, v_tender true : : : : : : false easy___:___. : hard artificial : : :___: : : sincere severe___:___:___: : : :___lenient healthy : : : : : : sick 157 How do I feel about: STRANGERS valuable___:____:__:__:_:___:___worthless tough___:____:__:_:_:__:__tender success__:___:_:___:__:___:__failure lenient ________ :_:__severe slow ______ :_quick true _____ . _______ false moral _______ . _____ immoral useful __________ :___useless strange____:__:__:____:__. '__natural dull__:__:___.__ _:_:__sharp interesting___:__:_:___:__:___.___boring easy___:___:_:___.____.___.____hard sincere ______ :___artificial uncomfortable _____ :_ _comfortable weak . : strong 158 How do (or would) I feel about: MYSELF WITH A HEARING AID sick _________ .____.___heal thy lenient__:____:__:__:___:____:_____severe sharp__:___:___:___:_:___:___dull inferior__:__:__:___:___:___:__superior artificia1_:___:_:__:_:__:__s incere tough___:___:_:___:___:__:____tender relaxed—:___:__:__:__:_:__tense unfair____.___.___._._.___:___fair success _____ .__: _____ failure false _____________ true useless _____________ useful moral _____________ immoral easy_.__.____. _______ h ard worthless valuable ——_—————— How do I feel about: moral ° severe uncomfortable failure sincere worthless useful unfair humorous *. good pessimistic I. 159 MYSELF IN THE FUTURE C. easy tender true : superior .0 immoral lenient comfortable success artificial _._ :_fi_valuable O 9 useless fair serious bad optimistic hard * tough false inferior * 160 How do I feel about: PEOPLE OF AUTHORITY failure___:___;___:___:___:___;___success relaxed__.___.__ _ _ _._tense hard__ ___:_ __ __ _._easy artificia1__ _:__:_ _ _ _sincere tender _______ tough disliked _____ '___ ___liked pessimistic _______ optimistic follower_:_. _____ ._._leader moral___.___.___.___:__:_._immoral useless____:___:____:_:___:___:__useful lenient___:__:_:_:_:__:___severe true___' _____ :___ false valuable_:_:___:__:___:__:__worthless undesirable : ' ' : ' : desirable s o o 161 How do I feel about: MYSELF AND FAILURE small : : : : : : yfilarge useless :__ : :___: : F_: useful hard fl: : :___: : W_ easy sincere : v: :___: :_T artificial valuable __: : . : : worthless success : : : failure positive' : : : : : : negative immoral : : : : : : wymoral tender : : : : : : tough unsure : : : : : : confident insecure i‘_iw‘_w . . :___:___secure severe : : : : ___;___lenient good : : : : g : bad false : : : : : : true tense : : : : : : relaxed APPENDIX C COVER LETTERS UTILIZED TO ACQUAINT SUBJECTS WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 162 163 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EASTLANSING Cover Letter #1 COLLEGE OF COWUNICATION ARTS - DEPARTMENT OF SPEECH The Speech and Hearing Clinic of this University, the Hearing and Speech Center of the Rehabilitation Medical Center at Sparrow Hospital, as you may know, provide hearing tests, hearing evaluations, lipreading, and counselling services to hard-of—hearing persons. But in addition to these services, the staff of these clnics is constantly engaged in research to increase our knowledge of the nature, causes, treatment, and possible effects of hearing loss. At present, we are interested in studying the effects, if any, of hearing loss on adults such as yourself. We are particularly interested in how some of your attitudes change as a result of experiencing difficulty in hearing and understanding what people say to you. We are well aware of some of the problems you face. For example: conversation is more dif- ficult; you sometimes misunderstand what others say to you; sometimes you would rather stay away from group situations because you find that listening is more difficult, and so on. We are interested in finding out what effect the hearing loss and the problems mentioned above have on the way we think about ourselves, our friends, the future, etc. We feel that this information will enable us to gain a better understanding of hearing loss and will allow us to improve our services considerably. In order to do this we have prepared the attitude scale enclosed with this letter. We hOpe you will find our purpose worthy enough to take part by sharing your feelings with us so that your contribution can benefit other hard-of-hearing people. We assure you that our interest in this matter is wholly scientific. We do no represent any commercial concern and the purpose of this study is in no way related to advertising or sale of hearing aids, and there are no fees involved. After reading these statements about our intentions we hope you will take the few minutes required to complete the test. You will note that there are nine pages in the test plus one page of instructions. When you feel you understand what you are to do then proceed with the test itself. Upon completing the test (complete every page even if you do not wear a hearing aid) place it in the envelope and seal it. Do 225 put your name on the test. In addition, would you please complete the information sheet clipped to the test and return it with the test. This information will make the results more meaningful. If you have any questions about the test or the purpose of the study, please feel free to contact us. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Edward J. Hardick Research Fellow i:- 16a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mmsme Cover Letter #2 COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION ARTS - DEPARTMENT OF SPEECH The Speech and Hearing Clinic of this University and the Hearing and Speech Center of the Rehabilitation Medical Center at Sparrow Hospital, as you may know, provide hearing tests, hearing aid evaluations, lipreading, and counselling services to hard-of-hearing persons. But in addition to these services, the staff of these clinics is Constantly engaged in research to increase our knowledge of the nature, causes, treatment, and possible effects of hearing loss. At present, we are interested in studying the effects, if any, of hearing loss on adults. We are particularly interested in how some attitudes change as a result of experiencing difficulty in hearing and understanding what people say. We are interested in finding out what effect hearing loss has on the way the hard-of-hearing think about themselves, their friends, the future, etc. We have obtained much information from hard- of-hearing adults through their completion of the enclosed booklet, and are now in the process of collecting the same kind of information from normal hearing adults like yourself. By having both normal hearing adults and hearing handicapped adults complete the enclosed booklet we will be able to compare the two groups in certain respects. It is anticipated that this comparison will add much to our understanding of the effects of hearing loss and aid in building programs and services of great benefit to the hard-of-hearing in our community. You and many other normal hearing people are being_§sked to helpyus in this matter. We hope you will find our purpose worthy enough to take part by sharing your feelings with us so that your contribution can benefit hard-of-hearing people. We assure you that our interest in this matter is wholly scientific. We do not represent any commercial concern and the purpose of this study is in no way related to advertising or sale of hearing aids, and there are no fees involved. After reading these statements about our intentions we hope you will take the few minutes required to complete the test. You will note that there are nine pages in the test plus one page of instructions. When you feel you understand what you are to do then proceed with the test itself. Upon completing the test (complete every page) place it in the envelope and seal it. Do 525 put your name on the test. If you have any questions about the test or the purpose of the study, please feel free to contact uso Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Edward J. Hardick Research Fellow 165 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING Cover Letter #3 COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION ARTS - DEPARTMENT OF SPEECH There are two reasons for sending this letter to you. The first is to thank you for cooperating with us in this research that we trust will add to our knowledge of the many problems the hard of hearing face. It may seem impossible to you that much useful information could be obtained from the test you took. Yet a surprising amount of information was contained in your responses. This brings us to the second reason for this letter. It is necessary for us, in constructing a test, to find out whether the information we obtained is reliable information. In other words, we have to know to what extent we may rely on the answers as being your "true" feelings. In order to do this it is necessary to take the test twice so that comparisons can be made. The thought may occur to you that we do not seem to trust the answers you gave the first time. I assure you that we are certain that you have attempted to give your "true" feelings. However, it would be difficult for you to respond to the test in exactly the same way the second time you take it as the first time. In other words, some of your X's will be in different spaces the second time compared with the first. This is bound to happen, but we must know exactly to what extent this occurs. This information then determines how reliable the responses are. Therefore we are asking for your cooperation for the last time. We would like you to take the test again following the same procedure as the first time you responded, and return the test to us. Do 225 try to remember how you marked the scales before----just put your X's where you think they belong, as though you were doing it for the first time. If you have any questions or comments do not hesitate to include them in the return envelope. Sincerely, Edward J. Hardick Research Fellow APPENDIX D PROBABILITY OF OBTAINING GIVEN DEVIATIONS FROM TEST TO RETEST 166 1.11.1 I.’ ‘I..ll.‘llll III! .I .uouuo wcwvooou ooumH=E=ouw ou can aw vouoo mmocmnfioouoaw asks ooo. ooo. somo. umo. ooo. ooo. o.o o8. 8o. .58. H8. or» omo. ooo. goo. amo. m.m Hoo. amo. Hoo. ooo. n.~ Hoo. ooo. Hoo. ooo. m.~ SNH. moo. Noe. amo. ooo. ooo. o.~ mod. moo. and. moo. emo. omo. N.H or can. amo. no“. ooo. ooo. ooo. o.H ”m mam. ooo. nag. ooo. ooo. ooo. ¢.H mew. umo. and. ooo. emo. ooo. m.H ohm. mNH. com. oma. moa. ooo. o.H omm. oma. «mm. ooo. «em. omH. 5.0 «No. ooo. ohm. ooo. mmm. «mo. o.o «Ho. mod. “me. moo. ooo. Hmo. o.o new. moo. ooo. mam. moo. How. m.o ooo.H mud. ooo.H com. ooo.H mam. o.o cofiumw>oo noncommom coaunfi>oo noncomoom cowuww>oo noncommom coaunw>oo nouoouo mo someone we nouoouo mo ousaono< no Hmovm mo ueou new no Hmovm mo unoo uom no Hmsvu «0 Demo mom huuawnmnoum huuawouooum huwfiaounoum HHH nouunm HH nouunm H nouonm hqmmwzuna Hmmozoo R... .uouuo mdfivooou ovumaoasuom 0u ooo ma omuoc mmocomfioouaaw onyx mnzmHmmIIN Hmmuzoo some. amo. s.~ omo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. m.~ ewa. «mo. «Hoo. moo. omo. Hmo. o.~ oma. ooo. Nmo. Hmo. moo. moo. n.a mod. Hmo. Nmo. ooo. «NH. Hmo. o.H mom. ooo. nma. moo. «NH. ooo. ¢.H mod. ooo. mam. moo. mma. Hmo. m.H oma. Hmo. ooo. woe. Ham. omH. o.a Ham. m-. ooo. ooo. don. omN. 5.0 «mm. moo. amm. Hmo. Hon. ooo. o.o woo. woo. ooo. mNH. «No. moo. o.o one. mod. one. ooo. Nam. mom. m.o ooo.~ omN. ooo.a omw. ooo.H wwH. o.o coaumw>oo noncomoom sowuow>oo monsoomom eoHumH>oo monsoomom sowuom>oo umunouo mo . noumouo mo noumouo mo ouoaooo< no stuu mo uooo mom no awovm mo ucoo pom no Hmsvm mo ucoo mom summoneaoum auuaeaenoum assessmnoum HHH wouomm HH nouoom H nouomm 169 .uouuo wowocoou ooumaosooom ou ooo mm wouoc mmooomwoouoEH ones omo. sumo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. o.o omo. ooo. ooo. ooo. «mo. samo. ~.~ omo. ooo. amo. Hmo. mmo. ooo. m.~ Hoo. Hmo. moo. Hmo. moo. Hmo. o.~ Hoo. ooo. moo. Hmo. omo. amo. m.a moo. ooo. moo. ooo. omo. ooo. o.H moo. ooo. moo. ooo. omo. ooo. ¢.H «mo. Hmo. oma. moo. mNH. Hmo. m.H omN. mom. Hon. mma. amm. omH. o.o omo. omm. Nam. Hmo. oom. mam. n.o mom. moo. Nam. ooo. Hmm. Hmo. o.o moo. omo. mum. moo. omo. moo. o.o ooo. mama. omo. mam. mam. mma. m.o ooo.H -omo. ooo.H ooo. ooo.H How. o.o cofiumw>oo momooomom ooHumw>oa monsoomom ooqumw>oo momcoomom ooauma>oo Houmouo we woumouo mo noumouo mo ousaomod no meson wo ucoo Hem no Hwavm mo ucoo mom no Hmoum mo ucoo Hum summepanoum euemansaoum summonsnoum HHH Houomm HH uouomm H Houomm E ‘ hAum HmmHmmdm NEInm Hmmozoo 170 .uouuo onoooou ooumHoasoom Ou ooo mH oouo: mooaomHoouoaH user ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. omo. kao. omo. *Hmo. m.~ .Hmo. Hmo. moo. moo. omo. ooo. o.~ omo. moo. omH. moo. moo. moo. n.H mNH. Hmo. smH. Hmo. Nmo. ooo. o.H omH. Hmo. mHN. Hmo. «mo. ooo. ¢.H omN. ooo. mom. Hmo. mNH. Hmo. m.H moo. mHN. NHm. moo. mum. omN. o.H mom. ooo. ooo. mmH. Hon. mmH. m.o mom. ooo. Hmm. Hmo. omo. moo. o.o omo. Hmo. mNo. omo. moo. moo. o.o mum. Hom. mHn. omo. mum. mmH. m.o ooo.H nNH. ooo.H How. ooo.H mNH. o.o :oHumH>oo «uncommon aoHuwH>oo noncomnom coHumH>oo momcoomom ooHuwH>oo Houoouo mo wouwouo mo wounouo mo. ouoHooo< no Hanan «0 undo won no Hoovm mo ucou you no Hosum mo uooo pom msumuasnoum homogeneoua summoneaoum HHH uouoem HH wouowm H nouomm mood UZHmdum < MHHS hANmWZTlo ammozou .uouuo ononoou oouoHoanoow ou ooo nH oouon mmocomHuoumaH onyx ooo . ooo . omo. sHmo. ooo. ooo. ooo. o.m omo. ooo. ooo. ooo. mNo. sHmo. m.~ omo. ooo. Noo. smoo. omo. ooo. m.~ Hoo. Hmo. mmo. Hmo. moo. moo. o.m mmH. omo. omH. moo. «mo. ooo. m.H mmH. ooo. onH. ooo. mNH. Hmo. o.H mnH. ooo. an. Hmo. mNH. ooo. o.H omH. Hmo. «Hm. mmH. mow. mNH. m.H mm HHm. mNH. Ame. mNH. mom. omo. o.H 1i omo. mmH. man. omH. omo. omo. m.o omo. moo. mmn. ooo. omo. ooo. o.o moo. mmH. mam. ooo. moo. moo. o.o ooo. mHN. moo. omo. moo. mmH. m.o ooo.H omo. ooo.H mHm. ooo.H mHm. o.o coHumH>oo someones“ eoHuwH>oo momcomwom :oHuoH>oo monsoonom :OHumH>oo noueouo mo woumouo mo uuumouo mo ousHooo< uo Hmovm mo Demo mom no Hmovm we memo new no Hmovm Mo ucoo Hum huHHHonooum huHHHomoopm muHHHomooum HHH nouomm HH neuowm , H nouoom mmuozon monsoonom conunH>un noncoomom cowumH>oo anemones“ conumn>oa noncono mo nonconu mo nouoonu mo ousHomo< no stvm mo uaoo now no Hnnvu we uooo new no Honvm mo ucoo nom muHHHowoonm huHHHnnoonm muHHHoooonm HHH nouomm HH nouomh H nanomm nH< 02Hm¢m= < =HH3 hammwxalo Hmmozoo 0) 1i .nonno wdHooson voumHsaboum ou ooo mH oouoo neocomwoonoaa 059x mmbfibh mmfi 2H maumwzwum Emmozoo ooo. ooo. moo. moo. ooo. m.m moo. ooo. homo. mmo. ooo. ooo. o.m ooH. mmo. moo. mmo. omo. mmo.. m.m ooH. ooo. HoH. mmo. moo. mmo. o.m mmN. mmH. How. ooH. omH. moo. m.H oom. moo. How. ooo. NoH. mmo. o.H oom. ooo. How. ooo. moHt ooo. ¢.H mom. moo. HON. ooo. oom. mmo. m.H moo. ooH. Hoe. oom. mmm. mmo. o.H mom. ooH. mom. moH. oom. mom. m.o mom. ooo. Hoo. mmo. oom. ooo. o.o moo. ooH. omo. mmo. mmo. mmo. o.o moo. ooN. moo. mmo. mmm. oom. m.o ooo.H mmH. ooo.H mmm. ooo.H moH. o.o coHuoH>oo oooooooom ooHumH>oo momaoomom cowumH>on momuoomom aoHumH>oo nounono mo. noumono mo nouoono mo ousHono< no Hwowm mo unoo non no Hanan mo uaoo nom no Hmovm mo uaoo nom nunnnnsnonm nunnnpeaonm summonenonm HHH nouumm HH nouoom H nouoom Hagan" .nonno wonoaoon oouwHoasuuu cu one on vouo: mmooooHoonmaH ooyk mmo. mmo. e.m moo. mmo. m.m moo. mmo. ooo. ooo. o.m mmo. ooo. ooo. ooo. somo. mmo. m.m mmo. ooo. smmo. mmo. omo. ooo. m.m mmo. ooo. moo. nmo. mmo. moo. o.m omo. nmo. ooo. mmo. omo. mmo. n.n omn. ooo. mmn. mmo. omo. ooo. o.m mmn. mmo. omn. mmo. omo. ooo. o.m oom. omo. now. own. son. moo. m.m u. now. mmo. ems. oom. ooo. mom. o.m mu omo. mam. mmo. omo. mom. oom. m.o mmo. moo. Hmm. ooo. mom. ooo. o.o mom. moo. mom. mmo. mmo. moo. o.o moo. mmo. «no. oom. mmo. oom. m.o ooo.n mam. ooo.n oom. ooo.a mmo. o.o GOHuwfimrun wumflOmmUM GOHufiw>OQ wuuflauwm GOMUNH>UQ mmwflommom mmo.—Underwa— noumono mo nuumono mo noumono wo ouoHomo< no Hosvm no name now no Hmovm mo uouu nom no Hmnvm mo umoo nom nunnnoeoono munnnooooum munnnouoonm HHH nausea HH nouoan H nouomn MHHmomHD< mo wqmommlnm Hmmuzoo 175 .nonno wowooson ooumHoasooo ou ooo mH oouoc mmoeomnoonman soak mmomnoe om<.mqmmnz--m nmmozoo ooo. ooo. «omo. mmo. o.m moo. mmo. ooo. ooo. o.m moo. ooo. ooo. ooo. moo. moo. m.m moo. ooo. «omo. mmo. moo. ooo. o.m omH. moo. omo. ooo. moo. ooo. m.m How. moo. HoH. moo. moo. ooo. o.m emu. mmo. omH. mmo. ooH. mmo. m.H «mm. ooo. moH. mmo. ooH. ooo. o.H emu. ooo. moH. ooo. mmH. mmo. ¢.H mom. mmo. oom. mmo. mmN. ooH. m.H ooo. mmH. mom. moH. mmo. oom. o.H ooo. oom. «mm. noH. ooo. mmN. m.o mmo. mmo. mom. mmo. oom. ooH. o.o oom. moo. ooo. mmo. oom. ooo. o.o mom. moH. oom. oom. mmm. moo. m.o ooo.H mmH. ooo.H oom. ooo.H moH. o.o eOHumH>oo noncoomom ooHumH>oo monooooom conumH>oo monsoonom :oHuoH>oo noumono mo nouoono mo noumono mo ouaHomo< no Hmavm mo ammo nom no Honvm no name nom no Hmsom mo ucoo nom muennosoono nunnnoeoonm munnnomoonm HHH HH nOuoom H nouomm i 5 APPENDIX E EQUIVALENT FORMS RELIABILITY 176 :_J \7 ‘0 SPLIT-HALF (EQUIVALENT POEMS) RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH FACTOR OF EACH CONCEPT DERIVED FROM THE RATINGS OF THE HARD-OF-HEARING SUBJECTS (Coefficients Corrected for Length) Factor I Factor II Factor III Concept Forms*' Mean SD** r Mean SD** r Mean SD** r ‘ ;: 3:3: 1:2: 1:2: 1:3: 3:2; 1:2: .- 2 3 3:33 1:33 77 1:33 1:33 88 3:33 1:33 78 3 3 3:33 1:33 ~78 1:33 3:33 ~87 3:33 1:33 -78 4 3‘ 3:31 1:31 88 3:13 1:33 78 3:13 1:23 .7. 5 3 3:13 1:33 82 3:33 1:33 ~78 3:33 1:31 88 6 3 3:13 1:33 ~88 , 3:13 1:31 88 3:33 1:33 -78 7 : 3:1; 1:22 1:3; 1:3: 3:2: 1:2: 8 3 3:33 1:33 .5. 3:33 1:33 ~78 3:33 1:33 ~87 9 3‘ 3:33 1:33 .87 3:33 1:33 -87 3:31 1:33 88 *See Table 17, Chapter III. **SD means standard deviation. 178 SPLIT-HALF (EQUIVALENT FORMS) RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH FACTOR OF EACH CONCEPT DERIVED FROM THE RATINGS OF THE NORMAL HEARING CONTROL SUBJECTS (Coefficients Corrected for Length) Factor 1 Factor II Factor III Concept Forms* Mean SD** r Mean sn** r Mean SD** r 1 3‘ 3:13 1:31 -78 1:33 1:33 -88 3:13 1:33 ~78 2 3 3:22 1:3: 3:11 3:1: 2:2: 1:2; 3 :5 3:2: 1:380 1:22 3:2; 2:1: 1:3: 4 3‘ 3:31 1:33 88 3:13 1:13 78 3:33 1:31 88 5 3‘ 3:33 1:33 78 3:31 1:11 ~78 3:33 1:33 ~88 6 3 3:31 1:33 88 1:11 1:33 ~88 3:33 1:31 -78 7 3 3:33 3:33 ~78 1:33 3:33 ~88 3:13 1:33 88 8 3 3:33 3:33-78 3:33 1:33 -78 3:31 1:13 81 9 3 3:33 1:33 88 3:33 1:33 ~88 3:31 1:13 88 *See Table 17, Chapter III. **SD means standard deviation. n \ it ,‘55' ea, 3131'1‘8Téi3u-w7'1’ ~ - - .2: Via-#86} ;\ ”V '35 .84- IL ‘3 M ‘,‘,1' ‘y i .1 . Q, .QW i4; -7. ”.45- 7]. _. ','v-r . r HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES 1|HI111111111111||1|1111111111111 31293103303172