THE CLIENTS PERCEPTION 0F THERAPIST
POTENCY AND CHANGES IN PSYCHOTHERAPY

THESIS FOR THE DEGREE or PH. 0.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

NICHOLAS l. BORBEL'LI
I 9 6 5 '

:1 LI] mu; ”gm my p)" (IT WILL" mg n; . ,,._ fl
A i LIB RAR Y. 1

g Michigan State

,3 University I

 

 

 

 

 

.- l

0V FINE :
25¢ per day per it.
RETURNIIG LIBRARY HATER“

Place in book return to I
charge fm circulation l

 

 

h
~~

ABSTRACT

THE CLIENT '8 PERCEPTION 0F THERAPIST
POTENCY AND CHANGES IN PSYCHOTHERAPY

By Nicholas J. Borrelli
The primary purpose of this study was to test the

"thypothes is that there is direct relationship between

client 's perception of therapist potency and changes in
psychotherapy. Past research and availability of relevant
data suggested two secondary functions: (1) the invest-

- “ igation of relationships between client 's perception of

therapist activeness and client 's evaluation of the

therapist and changes in psychotherapy; and (2) the inves-

_ tigation of relationships between client 's perception of

counselor-client similarity in potency, activeness and
evaluation and changes in psychotherapy .

I Clients were twenty-six self-referred 11.8.0.
undergraduates fifteen females and eleven males , who had
been seen at the 11.8.0. Counseling Center for personal-
social counseling for a median of fifteen interviews.
Therapists were primarily relationship-therapy oriented and
were either practicum students, interns or regular Counseling
Center staff members. ; - ’

Nicholas J. Borrelli‘

Client 's perception of therapist variables was
obtained from _S_'s Semantic Differential factor scores on

the concept ”counselor". Client 's perception of counselor-

'client similarities was obtained by subtracting "counselor“ ,

factor scores from the concept "one" factor scores. Client.
changes were. based upon the differences between pre-and
post-therapy scale scores on the as, D , Hy, .Pt and Se
WI scales (C. I. 8.).

One-tailed rank order correlations were computed

to determine the degree of relationship between the potency

’ variable and each of the remaining perceptual variables

and the C. I. S. The results of this initial analysis
failed to support the major hypothesis or any of the
secondary hypotheses . A more refined data analysis was
undertaken in which rank order correlations were computed
between the potency variable and each of the remaining per-
ceptual variables and change scores for the‘ five individual
MMPI. scales. The results supported the major hypothesis of

.a direct relationship between client perception of therapist

potency and changes on the By scale at the .05 level. This

' result was interpreted as being in general agreement with

the Ken-Mueller (1965) view of clients with hysteroid

. features. 0

None of the five secondary hypotheses were supported.

However, the; results of earlier studies- testing the relation-

5

Nicholas J. Borrelli

ship of perception of therapist evaluation and therapist
activity to change, were reinterpreted as being in

general agreement with the findings of the present study.
Methodological difficulties in the present
' study were discussed and suggestions made for future

research testing hypotheses similar to those of this study.

THE CLIENT'S PERCEPTION or THERAPIST
mm AND CHANGES in Psrcnommrx
4 i .

By
T

N1¢h°1a8 Je 301372111

A.THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in.partial fulfillment of the requirements

fer the degree of
C

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology"
. if /. ';fkés ' ”.3

.965

nu)”

DEDICATION
\
To, my wife Pat - I
i
I
l
I
l
J
I
x
i .
f ~-
' .3-

.M..- o .—

ACKNOWIEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his deep appre-
ciation to his comittee chairman, Dr. Bill Nell, and
to his comittee members, Dr. Josephine- Norse, Dr. Charles

Henley and Dr. Norman Abeles whose individual and collec-

tive efforts and continuing encouragement proved invaluable
in the completion of this thesis.
A very special thanks also to Dr. William

Mueller for his many helpful suggestions regarding the

design and implementation of this study.

w.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. Page
:ACKNONLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .f. . . . ii
LISTOPTABLES.................:.... v
LIST 0P APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . ' vi

INTRODUCTION . .~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . .é. °.; .

- BACKGROUND OF THEORX AND RESEARCH . . . . .”. .f. . . .~

. Therapist Potency .

Therapist ACt1v1ty e e e e e e e , e A e e, e ' e : I :
Therap is t Eva. 1118f. ion e e e 0 e e e e e e e e e e e
Client -Couns €10: Similarity . 0 0 0 o o o e .. e e e e

HYPWSES TESTED O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A O O O 0
WD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O" O O O O
The Sample? . .‘. . . . . . .

PHDGMU «u as OHJUM§ s- F‘ rd

mstmentSeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
The Semantic Differential o.- . . . . . . . . . 1

Them:
RESULTS
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S. . . . . . .
APPENDICES

h) ha en PI ha
«I a: \o In To

iv

TABLE
1. .
2. '

3.

my‘ -

LIST OF TABLES

Rank order correlations for hypotheses 2-6.

Rank order correlations for tests of
hypotheses 2-6 across five MMPI scales . .

Factor loadings, means and standard
deviations for combined concepts
'Tne" and "counselor" . . . . . . . . . . .

Sunmary of results of studies on HHPI
test-retest reliability‘with college or
'psychiatric populations . . . . . . . . .

Page
13

15

30

32

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX. Page
As ' The Semantic Differential . . . . . . . . . . . 28
B.TheMMPI.................j.. 31
C. Results of studies on.MMPI scale value

changes following psychotherapy . . . . . . . - 33
D. Rank orders for tests of hypotheses 1-6 . . . 36

E. Mean Change scores and variances of five
- MMPI scales for Kaufman test-retest control ,
group and Borrelli experimental group . . . . 37 .

P. Change rank.orders for five NNPI scales I. . . , 38

vi

1"

Introduction
f

The major purpose of this study was to test an
‘hypothesis generated by the author's clinical experience.
'The author had noted in his own and his colleagues'
therapy contacts, that a particular kind of client-
perception of the therapist was likely to lead to client
improvement. The author defined this interaction as potency
perception since clients invariably seemed to respond to

therapists on the basis gfjgome quality of perceived strength.

- ":;Pwhat-eLiCited and maintained a potency perception varied

y"“

“.1,

.from client to client and included such therapist features

“as knowledgeability, power, ability to tolerate anxiety,

ability to control client's aggressive feelings, or in
short, any quality of psychological strength.meaningfu1 to
the client. The significance of the potency perception,
however, seemed to be universal for clients in that it pro-
vided the client with a kind of external stability against
which he could allow himself to experience greater affect
and within which he could experiment with new behavioral
patterns.

The author's observations suggested that a direct
relationship might exist between perception of counselor

potency and change in psychotherapy; that is, that the greater

2

”the perceived therapist potency, the greater the positive
‘change ,in the client, and conversely, the less the per-
ceived potency the less the poo itive change. It remained
then only to state these observations and tentative con-
clusions in testable form. hence, the primary purpose of
this study, which was to test the hypothesis of a direct
relationship between client '8 perception of therapist potency.
and' 'changes in psychotherapy .

Availability of relevant data made it additionally

possible to test secondary client-perceptual hypotheses

suggested by previous research or the data itself. Some of
the 'studies cited in the review below, for example, imply

‘- a' direct relationship between both therapist's activeness

and client evaluation of the therapist and change in psycho-=-
therapy. This author 's position, however, is that the above \
stated relationships are of secondary importance to percep-
tion of therapist potency. The rationale for this view is
that mere activity per se contributes little to client change
since therapist activity can sometimes be defensive, partic-
ularly when it is prompted by client's attempts to manipulate
the therapist . Likewise, positive client evaluation of the
therapist, in the author 's experience, in itself is neither
a necessary nor sufficient condition for client change. This
seems. particularly evident when one considers the fact that
negative transference need not necessarily mitigate against
client gains . Conceivably, what can make both these client
perceptions important to client gains ,. however, is the degree

. " ‘ -1’:
If. -°~.:. .

'4 9’
C

3

to which they have some comonality with the potency
function - that is when, for example, therapist activity
is also regarded by the client as indicative of therapiet
potency. Insofar as this linkage occurs, 3, would then
expect evaluation and activity to be related to client
changes, but not necessarily otherwise. In the review of .
the literature below, the reader may note that activity
alone was never related to therapy change. Rather, in all
the activity studies , it was activity in conjunction with an
additional therapist quality which was related to change -
e.g. in the Griggs and Goldstein study (1957) the additional
quality was therapist 'directiveness . At a mininnm, this
suggests the probable contamination of the activity measure -
possibly, by a‘ measure of potency. I
J Th'e(_data alsoéent itself _to testing of hypo-=-
‘thresé‘s't‘regarding "the. relationship of client-counselor
,8 imilarity to change. The research reported below is mixed
‘ b‘ concerning these relationships . E's intent here was to
explore the relationship of counselor-client similarity to
change insofar as the data permitted, using a somewhat differ-
ent methodology than had been previously employed.
. . . The present study ' then had in addition to its prim-
ary function, ‘two secondary functions; (1) tW'exmfit‘ion ‘
._of relationships between client's view of therapist's activity
and client 's evaluation of the therapist and changes in psycho-
. therapy; and (2) the exploration of client's perceptions of

client-counselor similarities and the relation of these

4

perceptions to therapy changes. (Note: Throughout this
study the terms counselor 'and therapist , and the words

counseling and psychotherapy, are used interchangeably).

Background Theog and Research

-_- _ . , Rogers (1952) considers the client's perception
of the therapist's attitudes and procedures to be of " “r“
crucial importance in psychotherapy. In the discussion
'. ‘ 'T-below I; shall sumarize theory and research related to the
~ ~——- _dimensions of client perception with which this study. is
concerned.
Potency: A J! 1
With regard to the potency variable, several T;
’ authors stress the necessity of the clients perceiving
the therapist as possessing social power and/or power by
virtue of superior knowledge in order to establish a
therapeutic relationship (Borilari and Asnaourow, 1932; .
Maeder, 1955; Stransky, 1940' Cartwright‘a'nd Cartwright
{(1958) concede that blind faith in the therapist '3 power to ~ A
help may possibly be important for client changes , while
‘1 Nell and, Mueller (1965) argue that clientc-perceived counselor
“-t strength is a prerequisite for client improvement .
. _ W The Rosen et. a1. study (1961) lends some credence
to the above assertions by demonstrating that people whe arex '
‘ seen as‘ helpful (therapistsl), "are also seen ae possessing ' '
power . Further Support comes from Mulder (1960) who demon-
strated that in certain interpersonal situations people will
' I

I

v~

._

5

tend to identify with more powerful others , leading to
both behavioral and perceptual changes. Finally, the Dana
study (1954) reports upon the differential effects of '

attitudes toward authority on therapy success--adequate atti-

tudes leading to greatest success.
Activity: I .

Rogers (1952) feels it essential that the thera-
pist be perceived‘as more than just a passive listener for
client changes to occur. Studies relating to this thera-
pist function almost universally report positive relation-
ships between therapist activity and psychotherapy success.

Rogers' (1952) sumary of several studies showed that the

most helpful physicians (be. in terms of Psychotherapy

~success rates) were active and participated personally in

.the treatmentprocess. Griggs and Goldstein (1957) demon-
strated that psychotherapy was judged more suCcessful by

the client if counselors were active and somewhat directive

than if counselors were seen as passive listeners . Similarly,

Overall and Aronson (1963) conclude that when therapists
didn't fulfill client's expectations of being active but

. permissive, clients were less likely to return to treatment.

.W=

A logical extension of the foregoing theory and
research.would suggest that when client's overall evaluation
of the therapist is positive, successful therapy is more
likely to occur. Sapolsky's (1965) finding of a positive

correlation between patient 's high evaluation factor scores

\ ‘ N

6

(i.e. with the Semantic Differential) on the concept "doctor"
and patient improvement following several kinds of thera-
peutic programs , lends some support to the above assert ion.
Client-Therapist Sigilarity:

Theory and supporting evidence regarding the
relationship between client-therapist similarity to treat-
ment progress is mixed. Moreover, the bulk of the reported
research relates to actual, rather than client-perceived
similarities. Mendelsohn and Geller (1965), for example,

_ found a positive relationship between client-counselor simil-
\arity as measured by the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator and ‘
client-perceived comfort-rapport in therapy for one sample,
but not for another. Ourth (1964) , however, found no relation-
ship between client-counselor similarity as measured by the
author's own instrument (i.e. the External-Internal Orient-
ation Measure) and either stay or improvement in psycho-
therapy. CarSon and Heine (1962) found a curvilinear effect
when dyad similarity was measured by the m1 . The one
study dealing specifically with client-perceived similar-
ities (Sapolsky, 1965), demonstrated a positive and signifi-
cant relationship between therapist-client similarity, as
measured by the Semantic Differential activity and evaluation

factor scores , and psychotherapy improvement .

he e e
The theoretical viewpoints and research evidence
cited above, '“albeit at times indirectly, supports E's position

3.;

s: o

iii-v12}; regard to the importhnCe of the potency variable to

client change. ‘This position stated in testable form is

,,..V’ as follows:

. Maj g; Hymthgs is

l.

Client's perception of therapist's potency
is directly related to client changes in

psychotherapy .

The foregoing review also suggested the following

secondary hypotheses to be tested:

2.

3.

5.

3‘6.

Ihg Samplg:

Client perceived counselor-client similarity
in potency is directly related to client
changes in psychotherapy.

Client's perception of therapist's activeness
is directly related to client changes in
psychotherapy. ‘
Client-perceived counselor-client similarity
in activeness is directly related to client
changes in psychotherapy.

Client's positive evaluation.of his therapist
is directly related to client changes in
psychotherapy.

Client-perceived counselor-client similarity .
in evaluation is directly relatedfto changes
in psychotherapy.

mags

Some of (the data employed in this study were also

- used in an ongoing research project at the M.S.U. Counseling
' Center. As 'a part of the Counseling Center project a group
of fifty-four counselees were given a form of the Semantic
IfDifferential before therapy, after every fourth interview,
and at termination. S; were. asked to respond on the basis .
of sixteen scales to twenty-one concepts, among which were
the concepts "counselor" and "me". MMPI profiles were also
obtained for some of the fifty-four S; in the Counseling

Center project before the first therapy contact and at ‘
termination. .

‘ For this study's. purposes, 1.1 selected only those
§g from the Counseling Center project for whom both the
Semantic Differential data and the preéand post-therapy MMPI -'
profiles were available. The final usable sample consisted
of twenty-six self-referred M.S.U. undergraduates, eleven
males and fifteen females, who had been seenfor personal-
social cOunseling by either a practicum student , an intern
for a regular Counseling Center staff member. Clients had a \

median of fifteen counseling interviews. Therapists were

. fifteen males and seven females ‘and were primarily relationship-

' _ therapy oriented .

inggruments: :he Semantic Differential

Measures of client's perception of therapist

. variables and of client-perceived counselor-client simil-
arities were obtained from §_'_p_ Semantic Differential responses .1
. to the concepts "counselor" and "me". Whenever possible,

. i used 8 '3 post-therapy Semantic Differential administration

\

- HW__‘-._I

 

 

9

to obtain the: above measurements. When this was not poss-
' ‘ible -- i.e. When {i had no post-therapy Semantic Differ-
h‘ntial -- i used §_'_§ Semantic Differential administration
' ‘which was Closest in time prior to therapy termination.
.- (See Apendix A for a more complete description of the Seman-
'- tic Differential).
. Although Osgood et. al. (1957) provide tables 2
" showing the factorial meaning of a number of scales used in
this study, i; thought it desirable to establish the particu-
lar factorial structure of all the scales used in this study
,for this 'particular study sample. To this and g combined the
concepts "counselor" and 'he" and factor analyzed (Principal
. Factor Solution with Quartimax Rotation Method) the Semantic
. Differential responses to both concepts of a11.§_s_ from the
Counseling Center project sample of fifty-four counselees
who had at least three consecutive Semantic, Differential
administrations (NQAO; 240 observations on 16 scales). The
factorial meaning of the scales thus established is as follows:
potency scales - large-small, thin-thick; evaluation scaieg - -
. easy-difficult, optimistic-pessimistic, free-constrained, fair-
unfair, bad-good, destructive-productive, changing-stable,
safe-dangerous; activity §cale§ - colorless-colorful, sharp-
_ dull, active-passive, slow-fast. Two scales - modest-vain
and weak-strong ‘- did not load clearly on any of the factors
w and hence were excluded from the study. The fourteen scales ,
us ed in this study together with their factor loadings are
reported in Appendix A, table 3. "

 

. r 10

‘ To test the study hypotheses, it was necessary to
obtain: (1) factor scores on the "counselor" concept for
;each g foreach of the three factors (i.e. potency, .activity...
. and! evaluation); and (2) factor score differences between
. the" 'counselor" and 'he" concepts for each S for each of the
three factors.'
Four steps were needed to obtain §_P_._' factor scores.
'First, as outlined above, data‘composed of forty §_s_'
‘responses to the concepts "me" and "counselor" were factor
analyzed and the factor solution for each of the three factors
Robtained for the combined concepts. The next step ..was to
. dev'iate the raw scale score of each _S_ in the sample from the
normative group mean for each particular scale and divide by
the normative group standard deviation appropriate to that
particular scale. This yielded a z score. Next, the Z
”.7, - score for eath _S_ for each scale was multiplied by the factor

' 'fi

loading of that particular scale according to the formula

W, TieT-Trz (Thomson, 1951) . This yields a factor score for each

§_ on each scale. The final step was to sum across these
"factorescgres for each g for each of the three factors for

the cheeks "counselor" and "me". In this instance, the

-..

higher the WtotaL the greater the client's per-
‘ception of the variable measured- e.g. the greater the potency.

factor score on the "counselor" concept, the greater the degree
of potency the client attributes to the counselor. Each of the
~ three factor score totals for the "counselor" concept were

/ then independently ranked in descending order (see Appendix D).

Q

ll
3 Osgood's (1957) D score was used as the measure

'7' of. client-perceived-similarity between himself and his
"therapist. D scores were obtained by subtracting the
- client's Z-transformed scale scores on the concept "me"
from his Z-transformed scale scores on the concept "counselor"
and sunning these differences across each scale. glrepeated. .
this .operation for each of the three factors which yielded
a factor score difference total for each factor. In this
case, the smaller the factor score difference total (D),
the greater the degree of client-perceived similarity between

client and counselor. D scores for each factor were then

3. . ranked in ascending order (see Appendix D).

0 ‘ :The MP;

Research across differing Qtypes of therapy and
kinds of clients has shown that some MMPI scales are more .
sensitive measures of psychotherapy change than others (see
Appendix C). Using the above empirical rationale as the
. selection Criterion then, only five MMPI scales were in-
corporated into the study. A
' ‘ Measures of change were obtained by subtracting the .
/ post-from the pre-therapy MMPI scale scores for each client
on the D, Pt, Sc, Na and By scales. In all cases 5 was
looking for changes in psychotherapy. Thus , when, for example ,
an if; post-therapy scale score became elevated, indicating
" negative change , the . score was given a negative sign and the

difference between the pre-and post-therapy scale scores taken.

. When a post-therapy scale score was depressed, indicating I .

 

’

12

. positive change, the difference score was given a positive

sign. Accordingly, the difference scores for each S across

the five MMPI scales were added algebraically so that the

‘ ‘" higher the total, the greater positive change in a Client.

In addition, E, thought it advisable that account be taken

ew:»fi”‘ofthe number of changing scales as well as the absolute

magnitude of change. Thus , the author took the mean of the

N scale unit changes across the five scales and multiplied

this mean by the number of changing scales. Adding this

- total to the algebraic sumation total yielded the final

measure of change - the Change Index Score (C. I. 8.), which
again, was greater the greater the positive‘change in clients.
Change Index Scores were then ranked in descending order

(see Appendix D).

. Result; _
The data subjected to statistical analysis

consisted of: (1) three rank orders based upon factor scores,
indicating client's perception of counselor's potency,

evaluation and activity - one rank ordering for each of the

‘. factors; (2) three D score rank orders, indicating client- .

perceived counselor-client similarity along~the three Seman-
ticéDifferential factors; and (3) a rank order of client
Change Index Scores.

One tailed rank order correlations (Siegel,'l956)
were computed to determine the degree of relationship between
the potency variable and each of the remaining clienteperceptual

13

variables and change index scores . In order to test the
major hypothesis, a rank order correlation was computed

. between the rank ordering of the potency factor scores and

- A. the rank ordering of the Change Index Scores. The resultant

correlation of .231 was not significant at the .05 level.
Testing of secondary hypotheses two through six

‘ “proceeded in identical fashion as described above. The

results of these computations , none of which yielded corre-
lations significant at the .05 level are presented in
Table 1 below. ~

TABLE 1 .
RANK ORDER CORRELATIONS FOR NYPOTNESES 2-6 .

Nyp. II Clientaperceived counselor-client
. . similarity in potency by C. I. S. - .061

Hyp. III Client's perception of therapist's .
activeness by C. I. S. - .025

Hyp. IV Clientwperceived counselor-client
, . similarity in activeness by C. I. S. . .164

Hyp . V Client' 3 evaluation of therapist
. by C. I. S. .052

llyp. VI Client'-perceived counselor-=client
similarity in evaluation by C. I. S. .001
Although significant results were not obtained in \ .
the foregoing data analysis, the presence of a supporting
trend for the major hypothesis suggested that a more refined
analysis of the data might be of value. The author felt that
the effect of combining the individual MMPI change scale scores

into a composite change score (i.e. the C. I. S.) was to obscure

f

‘~‘_

14

the individual relationships of the.MMPI scales to the

‘perceptual variables. The finding of a supporting trend

thus recommended that a test of the study hypotheses using
individual MMPI scale change scores as the criterion of
change would be in order.

The reduction of the C. I. S. into its component
scales was of additional value in that it allowed‘gythe
means to demonstrate that client changes were attributable
to psychotherapy and were not merely random changes. This
demonstration'was attempted by comparing the change score
variances for the five MMPI scales used in this study to those
of a control group used_in another study (Kaufman, 1950).
These comparisons are presented in Appendix E. '

Using the above rationale, §,reduced the C. I. S.
into its component scales and computed rank order correlations
between the potency variable and each of the secondary
variables and change scale scores for each of the five
individual MMPI scales. (Change rank.orders for the five.MMPI
scales are reported in Appendix F).

The results of these computations yielded rank order
correlations significant at the .05 and .10 levels between
client's perception of therapist potency and the My and Pt
scales respectively. Correlations of .103, .137 and .055
were also obtained between the potency variable and the Rs,

D, and Sc scales, none of which were significant at the .05

level.

 

15
None of the rank order correlations for, second-H,
ary hypotheses two through six were significant . :These corre-

,‘ ‘s \

lations are reported in Table two below.

TABLE 2

RANK ORDER CORRELATIONS FOR TESTS OF HYPOTHESES 2-6
. ACROSS FIVE MMPI SCALES. .

 

 

Nypothes is 3 MMPI Scale
‘ a" Na D 'Hy . Pt Sc

 

Hyp . II Client c-perceived
. counselor-client
similarity in potency .098 -.154 .022 -.l6l -.062

Hyp. III Client's perception of '
therapist activeness -.101 -.005-.068 .096 -.014

Hyp. IV Clienteperceived

 

counselor-client .
similarity in . . 4 , ~
aetiveness - - . .-.095 . e110 e152 0099 e015
A Hyp. V Client's evaluation - . " ‘
-g; ,ef .. 'of therapist .-~;. «043“ .244..073 .144 .008
’ Hyp. VI Clienteperceived
, counselor-client
’ similarity in '
My evaluation -.105 .085-.307 -.033 .108
Miss.

The results obtained in the more refined analysis of
the data lends partial support to the major hypothesis of a
direct relationship between client 's perception of therapist
potency and changes in psychotherapy. The failure to obtain
confirmation for this hypotheses across all five MMPI scales,
however, leads ,1; to suspect that perception of counselor

potency has a differential relationship across different areas

——-_

16

j, of ~psychopathology. By this , i; simply means that the relation-

ship of perception of. potency to change may vary depending

upon the type or area of pathology being measured. Why this

should be true may be a function of the dynmnic meaning of

‘ the pathology measured.

One plausible explanation as to why this direct
relationship holds for the Hysteria scale has to do with
the Nell and Mueller (1965) view of clients with hysteroid
features '. This view maintains that one of the central dynam-
ics of such clients is anxiety arising out of fantasied
sexual omnipotence. What is needed on the part of the thera-
pist to counteract this anxiety is acknowledgment of the
anxiety and some effective display of psychological strength
(i.e. potency), which, in effect, lets the client know that

. Controls are available. When the therapist is able to

accomplish this , hysterical anxiety is likely to be reduced
and positive change occurs . When this is not accomplished
clients may become more anxious .

The reader may observe that a direct relationship
between two variables implies not only that increase in one
variable is associated with increase in the other , but con-
versely, that decreases in the two variables are likewise
associated. The fact then that the present study did estab-

lish a direct relationship between perception of potency and ‘

change on the Hysteria scale, corresponds quite readily with
"“ ‘ the Roll-Mueller position, for it confirms their interpreta-

tion of the meaning of therapist potency to both positive

W

17

and negative client changes; that is, that perception of
high therapist potency may effect positive client change
and “that perception of low potency may accentuate client 's
hysteroid features.

The failure to findfsupport for any of the five

,jsecondary. hypotheses with Either ’of the data analyses
'requires additional explanation. Differences between the

“present study and other studies testing similar hypotheses,

in sample composition and size, methodology and adequacy of
the data may partially account for the present study's nega-
tive results -- particularly with regard to those hypotheses
concerning relationships between counselor-client similarity

and change. The failure to find support for a relationship

, between perception of therapist activity or therapist evalu-

ation and change, however, reinforces Q's view of the

secondary importance of both these perceptual variables to
potency perception. Recalling E's earlier cirticism of
previous studies testing these relationships , the reader may
remember that activity, in particular, was always coupled
with a second therapist feature in its relation to client
change . _E_ had implied that (this second therapist feature
might in some way be a measure of therapist potency. In the
present study, however, by means of factor analysis, 5 used
as pure a measure of activity and evaluation as possible,
yet i was unable to replicate the results of earlier studies

relating activity or evaluation to change. Now, if E's

. assumption concerning the probable contamination of activity

18

and evaluation with potency in earlier studies is correct,
it may well be that earlier studies, like the present study,
were measuring primarily a potency relationship, but merely
- labeling it differently. In that case, the results of the
present study would be in agreement with those of earlier
studies .
1 While the author points particularly to inadequacy
of the data as a contributing factor in the failure to support
some of the secondary hypotheses, 5 also feels that the
handling of the Semantic Differential data in this study is
a more superior method of analysis than any the author has
seen thus far. Future researchers attempting tests of hypo-
theses similar to g's may find this methodology of particular
value . The author suggests , however , that the investigator
empirically establish the adjeCtival scales used in obtaining
Semantic Differential factor scores . One way to implement
this suggestion would be to allow a large sample of termin- .
A ated psychotherapy clients to describe, either with adjectives
or adj ectival phrases, the ways in which their therapists had
been potent, active, etc. ' Comonalities in these. client des-
criptions could be sought and these commonalities could then
be used as the basis for forming adjectival scales to measure
the three Semantic Differential factors.

Two additional methodOlogical refinements seem
necessary for adequate tests of hypotheses similar to those
of the present study. The reader will recall that the rela-
tion of perception of ' therapistf potency tokehange held for

19

the Hysteria scale, but not for any of the remaining four
' MMPI scales used in this study. This result suggests that
the potency variable, as well, perhaps, as Other client-
perceptual variables, may have a differential relationship
to client change across different areas of psychopathology;
that is , that the perceptual variable may be significantly
related to change for some areas of psychopathology, but
not necessarily related or less strongly related for other
areas of psychopathology. With this probability in mind,
future researchers may wish to allow for this variable ‘
'relationship by controlling for diagnosis and testing per-
ceptual hypotheses across varying kinds of diagnostic'
groups. ,

Secondly, it would be.most desirable to use
multiple criteria of client change whenever possible. This
procedure allows §,to protect against a possible bias intro-
duced by the use of any single estimate of Change alone.

Sumagy

The primary purpose of this study was to test the
hypothesis that there is direct relationship between client 's
perception of therapist potency and changes in psychotherapy.
Past research and availability of relevant data suggested two
secondary functions: (1) the investigation of relationships
between client 's perception of therapist activeness and
client ' s evaluation of the therapist and changes in psycho-
therapy; and (2) the investigation of relationships between

20

client's perception of counselor-client similarity in pot-
ency , activeness and evaluation and change in psychotherapy.
Clients were twenty-six self-referred M.S.U.
undergraduates ,fifteen females and eleven males, who had
been seen at the M.S.U. Counseling Center for‘personal-
social counseling for a median of fifteen interviews. Thera-
pis ts were primarily relationship-therapy oriented and were .,

either. practicum students , interns or regular Counseling Center

staff members. ‘ .
Client '3 perception of therapist variables was
obtained from g's Semantic Differential factor scores on
the concept "counselor". Client's perception of counselor- \
client similarity was obtained by subtracting "counselor"

. factor scores from the: concept 'me" factor scores . Client
changes were based upon the differences between pre-and post-
therapy scale scores on the Rs, D, Hy, Pt and Sc m1 scales
(C. I. 8.). ‘ ' y-j ‘

- I - One-tailed rank order correlations were computed

(to determine the degree of relationship between the potency
variable and each of the remaining perceptual variables and
the C. I. S. The results of this initial analysis failed to

(Asupport the major hypothesis or any of the secondary hypo-
‘ theses. A more refined data analysis was undertaken in which
rank" order correlations were cemputed beWeen the potency
‘ «(variable 3nd ea/Eh of the remaining perceptual variables and
scores. for the five individual MMPI scales. The results

—
- II
"
If,
A)"
; ’"fl‘

_w,

A ”I ,z—

21

K supported the major hypothesis of a direct relation-
ship between client perception of therapist potency

and changes on the Hy scale at the .05 level. This
result was interpreted as being in general agreement
with the Ken-Mueller (1965) view of clients with hyster-
oid features. . -

None of the five secondary hypotheses were
supported. However, the results of earlier studies testing
the relationship of perception of therapist evaluation and
therapist activity to change, were reinterpreted as being
in general agreement with the findings of the present study.
" Methodological difficulties in the present
study were discussed and suggestions made for future research

testing hypotheses similar .to.-.thoae.ofn. this .study. J .

REFERENCES

l

Borilari, M. J. and Asnaourow, P. Sintonopsiquia y neurosis

. (Snytonopsychia and neurosis). Rev. gpd. Latino-Ag§;.,
l932, 206. Abstract. ’

Carson, R. C. and Heine, R. W. Similarity and success in
therapeutic dyads. J. consult. Psyghol., 1962, 26
(1), 38-43. ‘

Cartwright, D. S. and Cartwright, Rosalind D. Faith and '

improvement in psychotherapy. J. cougggl, Egychol.,
"* 1958, s, 174- 177. ‘
Dahlstrom, w. G. and Welsh, G. S. An.MMP; handbook: A ggide

.fify to use in clinical practice and researc . Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press, 1960.

. Dana, R. H. The effects of attitudes towards authority on

psychotherapy. . c n. hol , 1954, 10, 350-353.
' Ellis, A. in

 

O. R. (ed.). Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon
Press, 1959.

Gallagher, J . J. MMPI changes concomitant with client-centered

_ therapy. J. ggnsulg. ngghol,, 1953, 17, 334-338.
Gardner, Gail G. The psychotherapeutic relationship. m1.

£311.. 1964. 61 (6). 426-439. g 5

22

 

23

’ ' l

.‘Gibson, 3. L., Snyder, w. u. and Ray, w. s. A factor
7 analysis of measures of change following client.-
centered therapy. J, gougel, nggholn 1955, 2,
. 83-90.
Greenfield, N. 8. Personality patterns of patients before
and after application for psychotherapy.
J. co ult. P chol ,1958, 22, 280.
Griggs, A. E. and Goodstein,‘ L. D. The use of clients as
judges of the counselor's performance. J , gougelI
szchol” 1957, 4, 31-36.
Kaufman, P. Changes in the MP1 as a function of psychiatric

therapy. J. consult, zgychol“ 1950, 14, 458-464. .

Kell, B. L. and Mueller, W. J. Impact and ghggge: A study

of. counseling rglatigmhipg. Century Psychology
Series. New Yorszppleton Century-Crofts, 1965.

Kleinmuntz, B. Annotated bibliography of MMPI research among '

college populations. W: 1962 :3
9, 373-396. '

-~ Maeder, A. "fiber die zwischenmeashliche Beziehung in der
Psychotherapie. (Interpersonal relationships in
psychotherapy-) WM-

’%“ paggagog,, 1955, 3, 242-500. Abstract.

“”‘Mendelsohn, G. A. and Geller, M. 11. Structure of client
attitudes toward counseling and their relation to
client-counselor similarity. W,
1965, 29(1). 63-72.

Mosak, H. H. Evaluation of psychotherapyzA study of some

current measures . Unpublished Doctoral Disser. ,

 

 

24
University Chicago, 1950 in 'MMPI changes con-
conlnitant with client-centered therapy" by
(Gallagher, J. J. WM,1953, 17,
' 334-338. I
Mulder , M. The power variable in connunicat ion experiments .
J. Hum. Relat.-, 1960, 13, 241-257.

./

Osgood, Cal-1., Suci G. J. and Tannenbaum, P. H. The meagugg-

ment of meaning. University of Illinois Press , v"
Urbana, Illinois, 1957. ~ -— \

Ourth, L. L. The relationship of similarity in therapist-
. client pairs to client 's stay and improvement in /
psychotherapy. Disser....Abstr., 1964, 24(9), 3839-
3840. '
Overall, Betty and Aronson, R. Expectations of psychotherapy
. in patients of lower socio-economic class. Am_e_r_'_,_

J. Orthopsychiat., 1963, 33(3), 421-430.
Parker, G. 'A. The predictive use of the MMPI in a college

counseling center. J. gouggl, ngghg ,, 1961, 8,
154-158. ‘

Rashkis, B. A. and Shaskin, 9D. A. The effects of group therapy

'on personality scares; W.
— e. l946,-?16,:343-349=."“'-" ‘

- r/

“I

7 Roger‘siC: R. The characteristics of a helping relationship.

f,»””/ P r 0 e1 Gu J , 1952, 37, 6-16. 9
”V Rosen, A. Test-retest stability of MMPI scales for a psych-

iacric powlation- MW. 19.53. 17.
217-221. “

 

25

.Rosen, S., Levinger, G. and Lippet, R. Perceived sources of
social power. J. abnom, gag, ngQoln 1961, 62, I/
439-441. ‘ ~
Sapolsky, A. Relationship between patient-doctor compatibil-
~ ity, mutual perception and outcome of treatment. I/

J. abnorm, Psychol., 1965, 70(1), 70-76.
Schofield, W. Changes in responses to the IMPI following

certain therapies. Psycho!" Mgnog“ 1950, 64,
No. 5 (Whole no. 311).
Schofield, W. Afurther study of the effects of therapies
on MMPI responses. . ab 4 c 1 ,
1953, 42, 67-77.
Siegel, 8. Non ar tr c a t c or h b ha ora
sgignceg, New York:McGraw-Hill Co., Inc., 1956.
Stransky, E. Autoritat and Subordination in der psycho-
therapie der verschiedenen Lefensphasen. (Authority
and subordination in the psychotherapy of the -.

various phases of life). MW,
1946, 58, 39-41. Abstract.

' Thomson, Sr. G. 23 fagtorigl analygig of human ability.
(5th ed.) Boston:Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1951.

Walker ,' Helen H. and Lev, J. Statigtigal mggengg. New York:
Henry Holt and Co., 1953.

/

Watt, G. D. An evaluation of non-directive counseling in the

treatment of delinquents. . W, 1949, .42,
343-352.

26

Weiner, D. N. and Phillips, E. 1.. A study of progress in
. psychotherapy. J. clin. chol., 1948, 4, 201-206.
Welsh, G. S. "An anxiety index and an internalization ratio
for.the MMPI“ in Basic Eeadings on thg mg; E
psychology ang gediging by Welsh, G. S. and

Dahlstrom, W. G. Minneapoliswniversity of Minn.
Press,11956.

/'\
. \

APPENDICES

"u’v

A /\

a
"

Appendix A

Wig.
The Semantic Differential was developed by Osgood

and his associates (1957) as a research tool for the
measurement of meaning. It is essentially a controlled
association and scaling procedure wherein each concept to
be differentiated. is rated on a series of seven point scales
composed of polar opposite adjectives. §_'s task for each .
scale is only to indicate the direction of his association
and its intensity on the seven point scale.

Continuing research on the Semantic Differential
has led Osgood and his co-workers to conclude that the three
primary factors--eva1uation, potency and activity--account
for the great majority of the factorial structure operating
in meaningful judgements . (To test the-generality of this
.fagtorial structure, Osgood‘i‘t. a1. undertook several studies

in which: they varied subjects , concepts , type of judgemental

,, situation used in collecting the data and method of factoring

the data. In each case , the same three factors emerged in
roughly the same order of magnitude. 4
3.211.921.1122:

Reliability measures of the Semantic Differential
generally are quite acceptable. Osgood et. el. (1957) report

'28

\

- fla-- -
- -q.o

 

29

test-retest coefficients ranging from .87 to .93 with a
mean r of .91. Again, citing, the,.results of their own item
reliability, check, .-the auth9é§ "report an rho test-retest

, .“f’éorrfielation ofmj85.” Reported error measurements of the
semantic differential on the average are .67 scale units--

yaw-”much. less than the expected deviation.
Validity: .

Reporting on the general validity of the instru-
ment , the authors cite as evidence many instances where
validity criteria of specific sorts‘are available--e.g. eval-
uative location of the T. A. T. pictures judged by §_§,
against the Semantic Differential were found to correlate
significantly with clinical judgements of stories told about
the pictures by the same is. A validity estimate of the 1
instrument 's factorial structure is obtained in the demon-
stration that representation of concepts by the Semantic

‘ Differential reveals essentially comparable structures as
yielded from the method of trials. Finally, other validity
measures were obtained by comparing the Semantic Differential

with the Thurstone and Guttman scales , which yielded corre-
lations of the order .90 and .78." 1 _ i'

..

1'

DEPARTMENT or PSYCHOLOGY
30 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN

Appendix A (Continued)

TABLE 3

FACTOR LOADINGS, DEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE COMBINED
CONCEPTS "ME" AND "COUNSEIDR". BASED ON THREE .
CONSECUTIVE ADMINISTRAT IONS OF THE SEHANTIC
DIFFERENTIAL FOR F ORTY _Sfi.
. (240 observations)

 

 

Scale Factor
Evaluation Activity Potency Mean S .D .

Large-Small . .1044 -.0698 -.7815 3.4625 1.3869

Thin-Thick ‘ -.0502 .0054 .7130 3.9417 1.3184

Colorless-Colorful -.1641 .7332 -.0661 4.8792 1.3624

lEasy-Difficult -.6651 .0576 .0512 3.5542 1.7070

‘ Safe-Dangerous ~.7607 .0667 .2573. 2.8875 1.4577

A Sharp-Dull -.2602 -.6885 -.0764 3.1583 1.2315
Opthistic-Pessimistic. -'.5849. -.3267 -.1920 2.9708 1.5449 _

,mthree-Contrained 1-46514 -.3087 -.3001"3.4792 1.8528

Fair-Unfair -.7724 .-.2359 -.0243 £2.5083 1.2715

.Active-Passive ‘*.3451 -.6679 :.0932 2.9917 1.5942

x‘Bad-Good -.6933 .1913 -.0511 5.6583 1.1401

~~—Destructive-Productive -.6843 ' .3216 .0330 5.4375 1.1602

Slow-Fast -.0399 ..7136 -.0439 4.3000 1.3454
Changing-Stable -.6152 -.2046 .1565 3.9625 2.0541 '

 

 

Appendi_x E
W

The MMPI was developed to serve as an objective
device for diagnosing psychopathology (Dahlstrom and
Welsh, 1960). In its most comon form the instrument con-
sists of at.1‘east nine clinical scales and thre validating,
scales. 9 is asked to respond to a series of questions
designed to assess symptomatology indicative of various
types of psychopathology. §_'s responses are readily con-
verted into numerical scores for each of the clinical scales.‘
In this way an objective measure of psychopathology is
obtained. Currently, however, comon practice is to inter-
pret profile patterns in combination with scale scores in
arriving at a diagnosis.
Validipz: _

Comenting on the MMPI validity, Ellis (1959) cites
Calvin and McConnel who assayed eighty MMPI studies from
1940 to 1950 and reported findings of significant discrimina-
tions between different kinds of groups in seventy-one and
eighty studies. Ellis himself reviewed one hundred and sixty

MMPI studies between 1946 to 1951 and found one hundred and two

(642) of these showed significant between-group discriminations. ,
Rothreviews cited above suggest that the MMPI's discrimina-
tive powers are better than that of the average personality

31

 

32

inventory (Ellis , 1959) . Ellis concludes , however, that the
question of the MMPI's‘absolute validity has-not been finally
settled. More recently, Kleinmuntz (1962) reviewed MMPI val-
,_ aidity studies with college populations under three headings--
concurrent, predictive and construct validity. The bulk of
these studies report results favorable for 1001 validity.

7"" ’Religbilitz:
L A Table four below lists in suulnary form the results

of several studies on MMPI test-retest reliability with college '

I or psychiatric populations.

~ _—
‘3

TABLE4

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF STUDIES ON MMPI TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY
WITH COLLEGE 0R PSYCHIATRIC POPULAT IONS . , . .

Study figpultg .

Parker, C. A. (1961) 4 4
65 _§_ from enera and Educa- ; No significant differences
tional Psych. classes. Test- 5 between test-retest scale
retest interval 14.7 months. * scores except for Pd scale.
Long and short form MMPI.
Gr en eld . S. l 8 I No significant differences

college _s_ . MMPI s o tained between test-retest scores.

at college admission and at

time of contact with college
health center. Test-retest inter-
val. 11 months.

Dahlstrom, LG. and Welgh, G.S,(12§Q) Correlations reported range
College _§_. Test-retest interva between .71-.92 for

1 week , clinical scales.

RosenI A. (195;) A Test-retest reliabilities
me e psyc iatric hospital ; were between .80 to .88
atients. Test-retest interval ? ~ for clinical scales in “
days. , ‘. cannon use, except for L,

R, Mf, Pa, and Ma scales
whichswere between .55
to . .

 

5229114125.;

Results of studies on MMPI scale value changes following
psychotherapy .

 

Study ‘ Rggultg
Kaufman“ P. (1990) D, Pt, Sc and F scales
51 _38' receiving conference therapy most modificable. Hs and
at U. of Wisconsin. §_s_ diagnosed), Mf same as above but to
primarily as .anxiety- states ; 99,9 _ - lower degree. MMPI scale;
.Ammcipient psychotic andnonetdevel- changes agree with thera-
;, oped psychotic. pist improvement ratings .
.‘Welsh, G. S. (1256) Anxiety index found sensi-
#wSevera popu etions tive to psychotherapy
“”7 changes. A131.33 D+Pt-.67
(Hs-H-ly).
Gallagher, J. J. (1223) Significant differences v
4 non-psychotic §_s_ receiving client- between pre-and post-thera-
centered therapy from.Penn. State py MMPI mean scale scores
counseling center. . ' on F, K, Hs, D, Pt and Sc.

Feeling or discomfort

scales (D, Pt, Hs) showed
greatest tendency-to

change. MMPI scale changes
agree with multiple measures
0 psychotherapy success

at .05 level. Agreement
between scale changes and
(1) client rating of success
and (2) positive-negative
feeling ration changesig-
nificant at .05 and .01
levels respectively.

.A 11 She k n .A 1 Using t score of over 70

., psyc atr c att e casua ties . as base, found greatest

and 15 anxiety patients in group changes in direction of im-

therapy. - * provement in D , Hy , He and

Pt scales. . . .

Sghofield W. (1220) ' .

. Outpatient neurotic females A. No significant differ-
treated by junior medical ences between pre-and
students. . post-therapy MMPI scale

scores.~ .
33

-.-.--a.-.- _i

11H_1__ 7 _.. .- #1..--

 

34

Assassins. (continued)
””1 Study Repulgp

Schofield, w. (19:02 ’
B. Hospita ized neurotic women. ‘ T B. Hs, Hy and Pd scales

changed s ignif icant 1y .

Schofield, W. .(1923) ~ Significantly lower scores
2 U. 0 Wisconsin males receiving on 7, F, R, Hs, D, Hy,

out-patient psychotherapy. Pt and Se scales. A11
‘ changes statistically
reliable.
Mosak, H, H, (1923) Significant decreases on
2 _§, seen in-c ient-centered D, Sc, Hs, Hy and Pa
. psychotherapy for average of scales. Same pattern as
15 interviews . on pre-therapy MMPI, but

general drop on all scales.
MMPI scale decreases assoc-
iated with significant im-
provement in feelings toward
self and others as measured-
by the Bell Adjustment-

- Inventory.
Weiner, D.N. and PhillipsE E.L,(12§%) Strong drop in D, Pt and '-
,. 1 patient undergoing modi iedpsyc - Sc scales. Decline in scales
analysis over period of 8 months. agrees with way client eval- ~-
4 Also retested 1 year after therapy - uates his own progress and
‘termination. feelings in psychotherapy.

G bson R.L. Sn er W.U. n ' 4 Used total of 20 psycho-
Ra W . S therapy change measures '-
2 §§, receiving-client-centered - 8 interview measures , 6

therapy at Penn. State U. Counsel- Rorschach measures and 6
ors. were 15 advanced graduate _ MMPI measures . Decreases
students in clinical psych. in D, Hy and Pt scales of
' MMPI associated with both ‘ --
' independent judges and
client '3 ratings of psycho-
therapy success .

Watt, G. D. (1949} 1' Differences in gains made
_s_ were uveni e delinquents f by counseled and control
receiving non-directive counsel- I group significantly favor-
ing. Control group of matchedfip _able to counseled gs for ,
not receiving .counseling.‘ ' Hs, Pd, Pt, Sc and Hypo-

mania scales .Changes sub-
stantiated by changes on

35

W (continued)

7'
\

Regpltg

California Test of
Personality which showed
same gains in favor of
counseled group. Trends
to support changes noted

. on Haggerty-O 1son-W icker-

man Behavior Rating
Schedule.

\

OOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOODOOOOOO

- MHnnoON on manH NmnONohH
.gN NNHH T ”3 HH N3 NN HH

1
60108.

.\
o
q! t:
H, .3
. 0 >5”
2: 3 33
givaug: oooooooooooooooooooooooooo
O O O
n cH a omNNNN H H OOHNQNOOMNN
a gas: 33.... .. 92 912.392 9
a ssés’
n a
'c uo
.3 33 -
g~gg foooocoooooooooooooooooqqqq
HH innczon H HHnNo NNnoaoomN
‘f 29 N m e HH 3N NNH HNN H
\? HO «
H m ‘
m o w
9 a .2 .95 *
5 o o H> moocconooonnnoononoooonnno
-u '5 3633' aiéééaioSa'éKaiééé-Mn' ‘oiéa; 'u’éoiaicé
5 0 35:9 HNNHHH NH ' N 3 HflN HN
g: rue-:5
4': 83m“
‘H 1
__,.__-, o ' m .‘
m'gg T
q: as cooooooonoconooooooooocooo fi_9
o m o nHoH HnmomNmNN HNO 4
‘8 H5 .SNHSQ HN on‘ g H“ H
.ou _
H :0 w .
‘ ‘8 .HQ f i‘
2 :I m _ ,
m N no EV
ms 2 as s
.3 «99946nooooooonnooonooooonooono j
e.gsH VHNn OMONHQQQnONMfiOMONnMnNQ '
‘3HS NYHNHNHHHNH H t
3'83.“ 1
I.” I
a a ;
H "1 ’ ‘ ;
m8 -= \h A 2
. Q ' oncnnnnononcnnon ooononnoc
33 ‘JJAASHHSSJHJHSSSJHN"fiJééé‘
a - .N NHHHNH H H HNHH NN H .
. . F
36 . ‘ ' .1-

“M u _ ’
w‘
~_ “' v w"‘mfl‘fi-"‘ ~“—H::“‘~" 1:7" ‘ ‘~- ~ - --‘""‘ “'7‘ '“r”‘ ."’.‘$'o’ {“’ $ A» -‘-'-_-~" W ‘ '~' ~‘- -r. "
1 ' . 1 ' - . 9 ‘ . - .,
g ' 1 ~ .

 

mmN.nnH no.0-

.'

«oo.¢o ¢¢.y

w...

on

“m

'\

o

o J
.

\.‘Pl

.2. .
;.,.

.0
. v0. -

t . .. .Vp .
«m.mHH on.nn who.Hm no.Hu om.NOHNoN.nu

NnJNo an”. «Hflnan ¢¢HH- Name” ¢¢.H«
mm m IN... a. 2 mm“ .m
2.9. a .. 2.9..

. . uHmom Hmmmz. 2

,.c

r.

.maouw Haunmaqummmm HHHmnuom van mack» wouuaoo ummuounumuathoanv

,9

m unH vcmmm< .

.H0>0H No. naomun u:du«m«deu «macaw
osu.:oosuon ooawHua>gaH mouauuoman a

mem.¢na n~.- Haaauuom
«cowae mafia- aaaanuu

mm

.mm

mfi_

amausmx you mmHmow Hus: m>Hu mo moccanw> van monoum madman aafiz

,, l

, y

‘

'31

k

-. ‘g ..-.—c.*"v- ““‘-.q-A--—T".‘$-9T-c--o _w~,-*._w~—A-» -~A..“ .aa—~~.f.
A - a

‘a,

-'~-v ".J~"\N‘—‘—~ ‘M- o vow—.a-O— 'r any --‘ --..

~....._..-. §

x-q

E

end
Change Rank Orders for five‘MHPI Scales.

ordered by Subject 1-26.

A

Rum

EIJ

2 J
0.3000000050005505005000000

521649638287.322729932401260
22 2.1.2 11.. 1121—1... 22. 11

00050505505000550000055050.

531 22 8 8u6-1IHQH8 o’boézmaanOo-lo

2|!!! -

000000000000000050000 oOoso

1524548330563818151617981D
.11 2 1121 2111 2 .

05055005000550000000000000

.4319606963636232802666510

21.12 111.2212 221,9-

1, ._.
M
00000000050505000000005550

no... Ie

15342654691383701623889338u
.22 22 1

111111 2 411

y

38