12ML 2 2 E

71-2169
SPICKNALL, Harrold William, 193*+THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INNOVATIVENESS,
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS, AND COMMUNICA­
TIONS VARIABLES IN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
DEPARTMENTS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970
Education, special

U niversity M icrofilm s. Inc.. A nn A rbor. M ichigan

Copyright by
HARROLD W I L L I A M S P I C K N A L L
1971

.

...

^

t.

HE R E L A T ION SHI PS BET W E E N INNOVATIVENESS,
CLIMATE.FACTORS,

ORGANIZATIONAL

AND C O M M UN ICA TIO NS V A R I A B L E S IN

INTERMEDIATE SC H O O L DISTRICT D E P A R T M E N T S OF
SP ECIAL EDU CA T I O N IN M I C H I G A N
By
Ha rro ld W i l l i a m Spi cknall

A THESIS
Submitted to
Mi chi gan State Univers ity
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR O F PHILOSOP HY
Department of Element ary and Special E duc ati on
1970

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INNOVATIVENESS, ORGANIZATIONAL
CLIMATE FACTORS, AND COMMUNICATIONS VARIABLES IN
INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT DEPARTMENTS OF
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN
By
Harrold William Spicknall

The rate of growth of special education programs
for handicapped children has followed the slow adoption
process pat tern of innovations in general education.
In Michigan 44 per cent of the handicapped children
actually received service In special education programs
In 1945.

Yet in 1970,

the per cent of handicapped chil­

dren who received special education services had grown
to only 65 per cent, an increase of 21 p e r cent In 25
years.
The concern of this study was to investigate the
relationship between organizational climate variables,
communication variables and the adoption of innovative
special education programs, practices, and procedures.
Knowledge of these relationships may help educators to
hasten the growth of educational programs for handicapped
children.

Harrold William Spicknall
The p o p u l a t i o n used in this study co nsi s t e d of the
29 in termediate school di stri cts in M i c h i g a n w h i c h e m p l o y e d
a certified full-time director of special e d u c a t i o n and
levied a tax e ar- ma r k e d for special e d u c a t i o n programs.
The responses of 520 in ter med iat e special e d u c a t i o n staff
m e mbers were us ed in the a nalysis of data.
Two of the instrum ents u s e d in this study were
co nstructed by the author.
trict Innova tiv ene ss Scale

The Int erm edi ate Sch ool D i s ­
(ISDIS), p r o v i d e d an i n n o v a ­

tiveness score ba sed upon the a d o p t i o n w i t h i n each i n t e r ­
m e diate

school d ist ric t of 19 p r o g r a m s , practice s,

and

procedures whi ch had been fully adopted by less than 50
per cent of the districts in the population.
The C o m m u n i c a t i o n V a r i abl es Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

(CVQ)

provided scores for the fo llo win g seven c o m m u ni cat ion s
variables:
1.

Use of Mass M e d i a sources of information.

2.

Use of I n t e r p e r s o n a l sources of Information.

3.

Opi n i o n leadership of director.
Pr ofessional involvem ent of staff.

5.

P r o f e s sio nal Involvem ent of director.

6.

Sta ff c o s m o p o l i t e n e s s .

7.

Dir ect or cosmopoliteness.

In this study the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate D e s c r i p t i o n
Qu est ion nai re was re vis ed to m a k e the items a p p r o p r i a t e
for Interm edi ate school dis tric t use.

The r e v i s e d O C D Q

Ha rrold W i l l i a m Spicknall
was

factor a nalyzed and the revised factors were found to

m eas ure the same eight dimensions as the o rig ina l OCDQ.
These dimensions are called Disengagement, Hindrance,
Esprit,

Intimacy, Aloofness,

Production, Emphasi s, Thrust,

a n d Consideration.
In addition to the three instruments above,

the

school-age p o p u l a t i o n and the amount of mo ney p r o d u c e d
by the earmarked special edu ca t i o n tax per child were
obtained for each district from M i c h i g a n De par tme nt of
Ed uca t i o n records.

These demographic variables were

l a beled p opu lat ion base,

and financial base respectively.

The r ela tionships between Inn ovativeness and the
o r g a n i zat ion al climate and demogr aph ic v ari ables were
an al y z e d through the use of Pearson Product Mom ent c or­
relations .
The re lat ion shi ps b etw een Innovat ive nes s and the
communic ati on variables were m e a s u r e d by m u l t i p l e linear
regress ion analysis.

Staff pr o f e s s i o n a l Involvement

a c counted for 19.9 p e r cent of the variance in I n n o v a ­
tiveness and was the only c omm unication variable to have
a significant r e l a t i ons hip w i t h innovativeness at the
p < .05 level.
Findings
Of the 17 relationships tested,

only four variables

were significantly related to Innovativeness.
found the following four relationships:

This

study

Harrold Wi lli am Spicknall
1.

Innovativeness of intermediate special education
departments was positively related to the schoolage population of the intermediate school district.
Larger school-age population was associated with
higher i n n o v a t i v e n e s s .

2.

Innovativeness of intermediate special education
departments was positively related to the Esprit
score on the revised OCDQ.

Higher morale or

Esprit was associated with higher innovativeness.
3.

Innovativeness in intermediate special education
departments was positively related to the Thrust
score on the revised OCDQ.

Higher Thrust was

associated with h igher innovativeness.
^1.

Innovativeness in intermediate special education
departments was positively related to the p r o ­
fessional involvement of the special education
staff.

Higher professional involvement was

. associated with higher innovativeness.

AC KN OWLE DGM ENT S

I w i s h to express my a p p r e c i a t i o n to Dr. Charles
Henley,

Cha i r m a n of my Doctoral G uidance Committee,

for

his gui dan ce and en co u r a g e m e n t thr oug h o u t m y entire
doctoral program.
A p p r e c i a t i o n is also e x t e n d e d to Dr. Ev e r e t t M.
Rogers for the many a p p o r t u n i t i e s p r o v i d e d for i n t e r ­
ac tion throug hou t my doc toral p r o g r a m and for the
va luable a s s i st anc e p r o v i d e d th rou gho ut the res earch
project.
I also w i s h to thank Dr.
Dr. Fred Ve scolani

Charles V. Mange and

for the d i r e c t i o n and support they

have p rov i d e d my d oct ora l program.
Ac kno w l e d g m e n t is also m ade of the assista nce and
co ope rat ion p r o v i d e d by all of the int erm edi ate

special

ed uca t i o n p e r s o n n e l who p a r t i c i p a t e d in this study.
Their assistance and co o p e r a t i o n was e sse n t i a l to the
success of this project.
The friendship,
researchers,

cooperation,

and hum or of my fel low

Si ste r Anne La wrence Clark and E d w a r d L.

Birch has b een the h igh light of the doc tor al program.
This r ela t i o n s h i p will r e m a i n among my most r e w a r d i n g
experiences.

ii

Special thanks go to my wife Betty,

for her a ssi s­

tance in the preparation of the manuscript and to my
family and friends for their faith, support and e n c o u r ­
agement throughout the doctoral program.

iii

V

T ABL E OP CONTENTS
Page
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ....................

li

LIST OP

T A B L E S .............................................. Vi

LIST OF

F I G U R E S ............................................. vii

LIST OP

A P P E N D I C E S ........................................ vill

Chapter
I.

I N T R O D U C T I O N .............................
Background
.........................
Di ffusion of Edu cat ion al Programs . . . .
Variables Related to D i f f u s i o n ..............
The Populati on
..............
. . . . .
Strategy and Purposes .........................
Value of The S t u d y ............................
Ov erv iew
.......................................

II.

1
1
2
4
6
6
7
9

REV IEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E .......................... 11
In tro duc tio n .
11
Di ffu sio n of Innovation R e s e a r c h
. . . .
11
Innovativeness Res e a r c h in E d u c a t i o n .
.
. 1 6
Intermediate School Districts
. . . . .
22
Research in Le ade rsh ip B e h a v i o r
. . . .
23
Organiz ati ona l Climate R e s e a r c h
. . . .
26
OCDQ in D iff u s i o n of Innovations Res e a r c h
.
36
S u m m a r y ........................................... 38

III.

M E T H O D O L O G Y .................. ..................... 41
In troduction ...................................
41
P o p u l a t i o n ........................................41
Intermediate School Districts
. . . .
41
Intermediate Special E d u c a t i o n P ers o n n e l .
45
Instruments
. . . . . . . . . . .
51
Organizational Climate D e s c r ip tio n
Questionnaire ................................
51
Factor Analysis
............................
53

Iv
1

Page

Chapter

Communication Variables
Questionnaire ................................
55
Intermediate School District
Innovativeness Scale
.................
57
Data Collection Procedures
. . . . . .
60
Treatment of D a t a ................................ 61
S u m m a r y ..................... ................. 65
IV.

ANALYSIS OF D A T A ....................................67
............................ 67
Introduction
R e s u l t s ...........................................68
Linear Regression Analysis
..............
72
S u m m a r y ...............................
77

V.

SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S .............................82
S u m m a r y ...........................................62
F i n d i n g s .................
84
Conclusions
............................ 85
Conclusion 1
.......................... ' •
85
Conclusion 2
86
Conclusion 3
................. 86
Conclusion 4
....................................87
D i s c u s s i o n ....................................... 88
Financial B a s e ................................ 88
Population B a s e ................................ 89
........................
90
Opinion Leadership
Sources of Information . . . . . . .
91
Recommendations ...............................
93
Implications for Further Study ..............
94
Opinion Leadership
. ... ................. 94
Financial Variables ........................
95
Intermediate School District ..............
95
Performance Variables . . . . . . .
95

BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES

.............................................

97

106

LIST OF TABLES

Table
1.
2.
3.

Page
Basic Data on M ich iga n Int ermediate School
Districts Pa rt i c i p a t i n g In Th is Study .

.

. 4 4

Bio g r a p h i c a l Data on Int erm edi ate Special
E d u c a t i o n Staff
................................

48-49

C orrelations b e t w e e n In nov ativeness and
De mog rap hic V ari able s
.........................

68

4.

Co rre lat ion s be t w e e n I nno vativeness and
Staff OCD Q V a r i a b l e s ......................... 69

5.

C orrelations be twe en I nno vativeness and
D i r e c t o r OCDQ V a r i a b l e s .............. ...

71

Results of Multiple Linear R e g r e s s i o n Analysis
of C o m m u n i c a t i o n Vari ables u s e d to Predict
Innovati ven ess
................................

73

Order of De let ion of N o n - Si gni fic ant
C o m m u n i c a t i o n Variables fr om Linear
R e gre s s i o n Eq uati on ............................

74

6.

7.

8.

Summary of Hypotheses

.................... 78-79

vi

LIST OP FIGURES

Page

Figure
1.

Geographic Distribution of Population

vlJ

.

h6

LIST OF APP END I C E S

Appendix
A.
B.
C.

D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.

Page

O rgan i z a t i o n a l Glimate D e s c r i p t i o n
..................
Qu est ion nai re

107

Intermediate School District Spe cia l
Education Questionnaire
..................

116

S upp l e m e n t a r y Instruc tio ns for Interm edi ate
School District Spe cia l E d u c a t i o n
Qu es t i o n n a i r e
.................

126

R otated Item Factor M a t r i x for 64 Items of
In termediate R e v i s i o n of O C D Q
. . . .

128

In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Matr ix for 64 Items of
Revised O C D Q ................................

130

F act or Match I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Ma t r i x for
Or igi nal and Re vised O C D Q ..................

133

R evised O C D Q Subtest Scores by In ter med iat e
D i s t r i c t ^ ' ....................................

135

Per cent of Re sponse on Sources of I n f o r ma tio n
by E mpl oym ent P o s i t i o n .....................

137

Per cent of Re sponse on Sources of Inform ati on
by Interm edi ate Dis tri ct
..................

139

Intermediate Special E d u c a t i o n Staff and
D i rec to r Scores for C o m m u n i c a t i o n V ari abl es

141

Intermediate School District In novativeness
S c a l e .......................................

143

Innovativeness Scores of In termediate Special
E d u c a t i o n Departments
. . . . . . .

147

Programs, Practices, and Procedures A dopted by
Less than 5055 of the P o p u l a t i o n and Defined

viii

CHAPTER I
IN T R O D U C T I O N

B ackg r o u n d
The study of the d i f f u s i o n of innova tio ns

is the

investig ati on of the m a n n e r in w h i c h a new idea or
pr actice spreads throug hou t a social system.

The focus

of this study is the di ffu s i o n of innov ati ons

in the

field of special education.

The innovations of concern

in this study are special e d u c a t i o n programs, practices,
or proced ure s w h i c h have been ado pte d by less than half
of the M i c h i g a n I ntermediate Sch ool Districts.

The

social systems of co ncern are the Ame ric an school system
and,

specifically,

i ntermediate school district d e p a r t ­

ments of special e d u c a t i o n of Michigan.

In this chapter

the general ba c k g r o u n d of dif fu s i o n of educati ona l
Innovations,

a g eneral d i s c u ssi on of variables

to the dif fus ion of innovations is presented.

linked
The

primary and secondary objectives and the contribution
of this study are discussed.
thi.s study

is included.

Finally,

an o ver v i e w of

2
Diffusion of Educational Programs
The study of the diffusion of educational innovations
is bused upon over 150 studies of the adaptability and
transition of the American schools.

These studies were

sponsored by Teachers College, Columbia University,
during the late 1 9 ^ 0 's and 1 9 5 0 ’s.

Mort and his col­

leagues developed the first systematic attempt to study
educational change.

These studies are discussed at

greater length in Chapter II. However, the major contri­
bution of these studies was to confirm the widely held
view that the spread of a new educational program took
approximately 50 years from the time of recognized need
until the time of adoption by approximately 90% of the
American Schools.
This slowness in the adoption of educational
programs in general is also true for educational pro ­
grams for handicapped children.

This is illustrated

by the following passage taken from the state plan for
special education written in 19^5 by John S. Haitema.
Atypical Neglected
Though making educational opportunity available
for the atypical is possible, feasible, and a
responsibility of the state, as will be shown in
the appropriate places in the following chapters,
it will be demonstrated that less than
per cent
of the most favored group are given this opportunity.
A study is necessary to indicate that there is a
possibility of developing a plan whereby oppor­
tunities for the handicapped
will be greatly improved.
i
fresent Programs Patchwork
Much is done in Michigan for the atypical.
Nevertheless the programs in all states have grown

3
and dev el o p e d on the basis of e x p e d i e n c y a nd well
me ant sympathy.
The result Is a p a t c h w o r k of
I n c o n sis ten cie s . . . .
Some types of h a n d i c a p p e d
are p r o v i d e d for r e l a t i v e l y w e l l In contrast for
w h o m p r a c ti cal ly n ot h i n g Is done.
Re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
for the edu ca t i o n of some are en tru s t e d to n o n ed uca tio nal agencies and for some s everal ag encies
share accountability.
Present condit ion s can be
de s c r i b e d as so c o n f us ing that only one wh o devotes
co nsiderable time to the p r o b l e m and is c onsi ste ntl y
w o r k i n g in the are a can u n d e r s t a n d the intricacies
of the pr ese nt organization.
There is, therefore,
a compel lin g need to d evelop a state pl an w h i c h can
be justified from the bases of c r i t e r i a w h i c h will
be d e v e l o p e d in this study.
Gr owt h of Programs
In 1920 there were but three states in w hic h
supervisors of special e d u c a t i o n of one or m o r e
types of at ypi cal chi ldren w ere f u n c t i o n i n g on a
state-wide basis.
By 1930 th eir n u m b e r h ad i ncr e a s e d
to 11; by 1940 to 19; and by 1942 to 23*
"This,"
says Ellse Martens, "is u n m i s t a k a b l e eviden ce of the
fact that states are m ore an d more r e c o g n i z i n g the
special needs of ex c e p t i o n a l chi ldr en and a t t e m p t i n g
to stimulate and to guide local p r o g r a m s of
education."
. . . The c onc lu s i o n seems w a r r a n t e d
that were there no g r o w t h the study m i g h t e ven then
be needed, but since the gr o w t h of the p r o g r a m is
an ever i n c r e a s i n g rate, the need for a study of
this nature becomes even mo re comp ell ing (pp. 1-3)H a i t e m a states that 44 p e r cent of the h a n d i c a p p e d
children of M i c h i g a n were r e c e i v i n g services in 19^5*
The present

level of p r o g r a m m i n g i l l u st rat es the p a i n ­

fully slow d i f f u s i o n process

for special edu ca t i o n

services.

The D ivision of Sp ecial E d u c a t i o n of the
. #
Mi chi gan Department of E d u c a t i o n es tim a t e d In 1969
that
65 per cent of the ha n d i c a p p e d child ren of M ich i g a n who
could benefit from a special e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m were
Based on United States Office of E d u c a t i o n
1 nc Idutiee f igures .

be ing served.

In a state that is r e c o g n i z e d as one of

the leaders in p r o v i d i n g e d u c a tio nal services
h a n d i cap ped children,
needs are unmet.

for

an e sti m a t e d 35 p e r cent of these

F urt her mor e,

it appears that there

has only been a growth of 21 per cent in the past
years.

25

At this growth rate of less than one p e r cent

per y ear the e d u c a t i o n a l needs of M ich iga n's h a n d i c a p p e d
children w ould not be met until aft er the year 2005Legally, mor all y and e d u c a t i o n a l l y the state can
not afford to wait an other 35 years to assure every
Mi chigan child of his right to an education.

Therefore,

educators must explore every avenue w h i c h wou ld reduce
the discre pan cy be twe en the need and services delivered.
Variables R ela t e d to D i f f u s i o n
One app ro ach to this p r o b l e m is th ro u g h the study
of the d iff usion of e d u c a t i o n a l innovations.

By

identif ica tio n of the va riables w hic h influen ce the
a d opt ion of edu cat ion al Innovations,

and m an i p u l a t i o n

of these variables, educators may be able to reduce the
time lag between r e c o g n iti on of a nepd and the f u l ­
fillment of that need.
Previous res ear ch rep ort ed in detail in Chapter
II, has suggested that certain variables are related to
Innovativeness.
of

Demographic variables such as the size

:.iiid s c h o o l

districts,

or the financial

5
resources

of school districts may Influence the a d o p t i o n

rate of e d u c a ti ona l innovation.
Leadership beh avi or and o rga ni z a t i o n a l climate
research have also con tri but ed to the kno wle dge in the
field of diffusion, of innovations.

Or ganizational climate

variables re fer to the I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n staff and
administrators w i t h i n edu cat ion al social systems, i.e.
schools.
The field of commun ica tio n r e s e a r c h has produc ed
many conceptual va riables whi ch are
tiveness

(Rogers,

1962).

linked to i n n o v a ­

Am ong t hes e variables is the

degree to which members of a social system have access
to sources

of i n f o r m ati on outside that social system,

or cosmopoliteness.
variables

Another of these com munication

is the degree to whic h a leaders'

sought by members of the social system,

op ini on is

or opinion

leadership.
A det ailed d e f i n i t i o n of each of these variables
is continued in Chapter III.
The present

study is an I nves t i g a t i o n of the

relationships be twe en innovativeness and certain
demographic,
variables
Michigan.

o r g a n i zat ion al climate and communications

in the intermediate school districts of

6
The P opu lat ion
The interm edi ate school district in M i c h i g a n is
an educational a d m i n i s t r a t i o n unit w h i c h serves as a
link bet wee n the State D epartment of E d u c a t i o n and local
school districts.

The org a n i z a t i o n and functions of

the intermediate school district are dis cu s s e d at length
later In this study.
Because Mi ch i g a n Interm edi ate School Districts
have the pow er to levy a tax e a r m a r k e d to be u s e d for
special education programs,

and employ large numbers

of pr ofessional special educators,

they could influence

the gr owt h of educat ion al pro gra ms for h a n d i c a p p e d
children.

Very little r ese a r c h has focused upon this

resource.

The refore this study uses the i nte rme dia te

school districts as the p o p u l a t i o n for the i n v e s t i g a t i o n
of the r elationship b e t w e e n inn ova tiv ene ss and the
variables m e n t i o n e d above.
S t rategy and Purposes
This is a correlational study w h i c h investigates
the relationships be t w e e n inn ovativeness and certain
communication,

organ iza tio nal climate,

and d e m o g ra phi c

variables.
The major purpose of this study is to attempt to
answer the
I.

following questions:

Are communications

variables r el a t e d to the

adoption of innovative special e duc ation

W

1"' -

'

7
programs,

practices,

and pr o c e d u r e s in Mic hi g a n

In termediate De par tme nts of Sp ecial Education?
I
2.

Are o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate var iab les rel a t e d to
the a d o p t i o n of innova tiv e special e duc a t i o n
programs,

practices,

and pr o c e d u r e s in M i c h i g a n

Intermed iat e De par tme nts of Special Educati on?
The secondary con cern of this study Is to attempt
to answer the f o l l o w i n g questions:
1.

Do the ge n e r a l i z a t i o n s g e n e r a t e d by previou s
re search in d i f f u s i o n of I nnov ati ons apply to
special e d u c a t i o n practices, procedures,

and

programs?
2.

Do the ge n e r a l i z a t i o n s g e n e r a t e d by previous
re sea rch In d i f f u s i o n of Innovations apply to
special e d u c a t i o n departme nts

of in termediate

school districts in Michigan?
3.

Does the r e s e a r c h on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate
variables g ene ral ize to special e duc ation
departments of i n t e r med iat e school districts
in Michigan?
Value of the Study
Although demographic, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate,

and

communi cat ion s va ri ables appear to offer clues to the
varianc e in the ado p t i o n rate of special ed uca tio n
p r o g r a m s , no one really knows if these variables are
liideei] re s p o n s i b l e for this variance or to what degree each

8
variable may contribute to this variance.

Educators,

convinced of the need for programs for exceptional
children, need to know what specific factors will
Influence and expedite the development of such p ro­
grams.

With a knowledge of these specific factors,

educational leaders will be better able to plan and
facilitate adoption of educational programs for excep­
tional children.

This study is designed to provide

information which may assist educators to accomplish
this important task.
In addition, this study should effect the generalizabillty of two fields of research.

The investigation

of the relationships between innovativeness and com­
munications variables are based upon generalizations
from research in diffusion of innovations
pp.

311-315).

(Rogers, 1962,

These generalizations are based on research

which has been conducted primarily in the area of ruralsociology.

The use of the relationships contained in

these generalizations in this study should increase the
knowledge of their application to a larger population.
The organizational climate factors used in this
study are equivalent to the factors derived from the
original
naire

w<-.*

O r g a n t zationa.1

(■ 'Cl 1'0 , Mlslnln,
'in an

Climate Description Question­
19 66).

The original OCDQ factors

r-I e/uen t.nr.v school

po pul ati on.

'hi

. 9
subsequent studies,

o t h e r po p u l a t i o n s have been used

Including secondary schools
1966)
uses

and nurses

(Muliak,

(McWilliams,

1 9 6 3 ).

1967; Sargent,

The p resent study

the OCD Q with i ntermediate school district d e p a r t ­

ments of special e d u c ati on in Michigan.
factors

Because the

that e mer ged from the I n t e r m e d i a t e school

district r evi s i o n of the O CDQ are equiv ale nt to the
original O C D Q factors, this study enlarges the ge ne r a l izability of O C D Q res ear ch to include In ter med iat e
school district de par tme nts of special e d u c a t i o n in
Michigan.
Ov erview
The r e m a i n d e r of this thesis is o r g a niz ed In the
following manner:
In Chapter II, the p e r t in ent literature is reviewed.
In C hapter III, the p o p u l a t i o n a nd the m e t h o d used
in this study,

the r esults of the factor analysis of the

Revised O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate Que sti onn air e,

and the

compari son with the origin al O C D Q are presented.

The

C o m m u n i c a t i o n V a r i a b l e Q u e s t ion nai re and the I n t e r ­
me dia te School District In nov ati ven ess Scale are explained.
Ch ap t e r IV contains the results of the a nalysis of
the re lat ion shi ps be t w e e n innovativeness,
factors,

c o m m u n ica tio n variables,

variables.

and the OC DQ

and demogr aph ic

10
In Chapter V 5 a summary of the results of the study
as well as the conclusions reached and Implications for
further study are presented.

CHAPTER II
RE V I E W OP THE L I T E R A T U R E

In tr o d u c t i o n
This chapter contains a r e v i e w of r e s e a r c h In two
major fields whi ch are rel ate d to this study.

The first

research in this 'review deals w i t h the d i f f u s i o n of
innovations in the ge ne r a l field of c o m m u n i c a t i o n
research and In the field of e d u c a tio nal research.
The second section in this re v i e w contains r e s e a r c h
which focuses on o r g a n iza tio nal behavior.
subsections of this r e s e a r c h discuss

Spe cif ic

leader shi p b e h a v i o r

and the developm ent of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate concepts
in edu cat ion al research.
Di ffu sio n of In nova tio n Res ear ch
In Di ffu s i o n of I n n o v a t i o n s , Rogers

(1962),

defines the basic v o c a b u l a r y in the study of h o w new
ideas spread as follows:
There are four e sse nti al ele ments In any analysis
of the di ffusion of an idea:
(1) the Innovation,
and (2) its c o m m un ica tio n from one i n d i v i d u a l to
another, (3) in a social system, (4) over time.
An innova tio n is an idea p e r c e i v e d as new by the
Individual.
D i f f us ion Is the p ro c e s s by w h i c h an
in nov ati on s p r e a d s . The d i f f u s i o n pro ces s is the
spread of a new Idea from its source of i nve n t i o n
or creation to its u lti mate users or adopters.
A
social system is a p o p u l a t i o n of individuals who
11

12
are functionally differentiated and engaged In
collective problem solving behavior.
Adoption
Is a decision to continue full use of an in n o v a ­
tion.
The adoption process is the mental process
through which an individual passes from first
hearing about an innovation to final adoption.
Innovativeness is the degree to which an individual
is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than
other members of his social system.
(pp. 19-20)
The present study focuses on the second and third
elements in the diffusion of innovations i.e.

communi­

cation between individuals w i t h i n a social system, and
the social system itself, i.eRogers

Intermediate school districts.

(1962) discusses concepts used in the

present study.

Opinion leadership is the extent to

which a leader within a social system is sought as a
source of information, particularily about n ew ideas.
Opinion leaders exert influence upon the members of the
social system and effect the adoption of new ideas.
The concept of opinion leadership is related to the
concept of a two-step flow of I nformation model.

In

the two-step flow of information model, information
comes into the social system through a leader and is
disseminated by the leader to the other members of the
social system

(Rogers, 1962, pp.

211-214).

Opinion leadership has b een linked to innovativeness
in several studies

(Rogers,

1962, p. 184), and g e n e r a l ­

izations have been developed concerning the relationship
between opinion leadership and other communication
variables.

One generalization based on the results of

13
previous r ese arc h In commun ica tio ns

Is that the earlier

one adopts a new Idea, the g rea ter Is his opinion
leadership.

It is also g e n e r a l i z e d that the g r e a t e r
i

the o pinion leadership of a person,

the g r e a t e r is

his influence wi t h i n the social system.
The concept of c o s m o po lit ene ss is also di scu s s e d
by Rogers

(1 9 6 2 , pp.

182-184).

The concept of c o s m o ­

politeness deals with the use of sources of i n f o r m a t i o n
that are outside the social system.

The m ore cosmopolite

a pe r s o n is, the more sources of i n f o r m a t i o n outside the
social system he has.
is m e a s u r e d in terms

In the pr e s e n t study c o s m o po lit ene ss
of the n u m b e r of days that the

d i r e c t o r an d/o r staff spend outside the int ermediate
school district a tte nding p r o f e s s i o n a l conventions,
conferences,

or meetings.

The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n dev elo ped

around the concept of c osm opo lit ene ss is that early
adoptors are mor e cosmopo lit e than later adopters, or
the more innovative one is,

the h i g h e r will be his

cosmopoliteness.
The r el a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n financial factors and
innovativeness is also d i s c u s s e d by Rogers

(1962).

more innovative a p erson is, the b e t t e r off,
he tends to be.

The

financially,

This g e n e r a l i z a t i o n w i l l alfco be

investigated in the p resent study.
Time of a doption is an important factor in the
determ i na t io n of i n n o v a t i v e n e s s .

Generally,

the earlier

one adopts

a new idea,

considered to be.

the more Innovative he is

The foll owi ng three general iza tio ns

concerning i nno vat ive nes s

(Rogers,

1962) are i n v e s t i ­

gated in the pre sen t study:
1.

Ear l i e r adopters have a m o r e fav orable financial
p o s i t i o n than later adoptors.

2.

E a r l i e r adoptors are more c osmopolite than later
adoptors.

3.

E a r l i e r ad optors have m o r e opinion leadership
than later adoptors.

(p.

313)

A study closely r e l a t e d to the pr esent study was
conducted by Davis

(1965).

Davis'

study concerned the

re lationship of p e r s o n a l and o rgan i z a t i o n a l variables
to the a d o p t i o n of educati ona l innovations in mi dwe st
liberal arts colleges.
Davis used a p o p u l a t i o n of 136 pr ivate liberal
arts colleges in the m i d w e s t e r n states.

He sent a

qu est ion nai re c ont ain ing 19 items whi ch were Ide nti f i e d
by reviews of current literature as innovations.

E ach

college was a sked to indicate the status of innovative
practices or programs in the following manner:
1.

Adopted instit uti on- wide

2.

Adopted by a part of the i nst itu tio n

3.

Under con sid era tio n for ad option

4.

Not ad opted and not u n d e r c ons ide rat ion

15
,
‘Jcoros of 3> 2, 1, and 0 respectively were assigned to
these responses.

Additional space was provided for each

college to list other programs or practices which it had
adopted and considered innovative.
When all of the questionnaires were received, the
responses on the items were tabulated.

Only those items

which had been adopted by fewer than 50% of the liberal
arts colleges surveyed were then considered as innovations.
An innovativeness score for each liberal arts college
was figured from that college's responses on the resulting
19 innovative items.

This procedure is similar to the

procedure for determining the innovativeness scores for
the intermediate school districts in the present study.
Davis selected one school from each extreme, i.e. one
high innovative and one low innovative school, for
further in depth study. This procedure is different
from the procedure used in the present study where the
entire population is used for the in-depth study.
Another study which investigated the differences
between innovative and non-innovative social systems
was conducted by Yadov

(1967).

Yadov compared a

traditional village with a modern village in India.

The

elements of communication structure in informal social
structure were analyzed.

As in the Davis study the

social systems were comparable on several important
characteristics.

The social systems were similar.

16
First,

Innovations

s t u d i e d were I n t r o d u c e d b y the same

change agent at similar times.

Second,

the ph ys i c a l

conditions and facilities were similar.
Th e concept of o p i n i o n lea der shi p is i n c o r p o r a t e d
into Yadov's study in the ana lysis of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s
between i n f o r m a t i o n - g i v e r s and i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k e r s

in

the t r a d i tio nal and m o d e r n villages.
The concept of c o s m o pol ite nes s was also used in
the Yad ov study.

As s ugg este d by Rogers

(1962),

cosmo­

politene ss is d e f i n e d as c o m m u n i c a t i o n contacts b e t w e e n
me mbers of a social system and sources of i n f o r m a t i o n
outside the social system.
As in the D avis study, Ya d o v uses only an extreme
example from each en d of the c o n t i n u u m of the concept
of inn ova t i v e n e s s ,

i.e.

one m o d e r n v ill age versus one

traditional village.
Innovati ven ess R e s e a r c h in E d u c a t i o n
Ed uca tor s have k n o w n or, at least,

s u s p e c t e d that

it took several years for an e d u c a t i o n a l i n n o v a t i o n
to develop from its i nitial ado p t i o n to its complete
adoption.
lege,

Yet, not until Mort, et.al.

of T e a c h e r s C o l ­

Col umb ia Un ive rsi ty b e g a n to p u b l i s h studies on

the a dap tab il ity an d t r a n s i t i o n in A m e r i c a n schools
(Mort and Cornell,

1938 an d 19*11)* did a systemat ic study

of innova tio n in school systems emerge.

The early

studies dealt with i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of school children's

17
health problems, and health inspection by a school
doctor.

These studies showed that it required 50 years

from the time of introd uct ion of the practice until
almost complete

(90-100JC) adoption.

adoption of kindergartens

The study of the

(Mort and Cornell,

1941)

supported the often-quoted belief that educational
Innovations took 50 years for the adoption process.
This belief has been subsequently altered by studies
of the adoption of driver education in 12 years and
modern math
Mort

in

five years,

(Carlson,

1964).

(1964), summarized the findings of the

previous half-century of research in the di ffu sio n of
educational innovations as f o l l o w s :
1.

Typically, an extravagantly long time elapses
before an insight into a need (or a discovery
that past practice is indefensible) is responded
to by innovations destined for general acceptance
in the schools.
This period is mea s u r e d in terms
of decades . . .

2.

The spread of an innovation through the American
school system proceeds at a slow pace.
This
likewise must be mea s u r e d in decades.
It is
very slow for a decade or so, very r a p i d for a
couple of decades, and then very slow du rin g the
mo ppi ng- up period.
Under extraordinary c o n ­
ditions, and w i t h extraordinary expenditure of
effort, t h e ‘decades of invention and the decades
of diffusion may be telescoped into months . . .

3.

The rate of di ffusion of complex innovations
appears to be the same as that for simple Innova­
tions; Innovations that increase cost move more
slowly than those that do not.

4.

During the slow early period of spread of an
innovation, the innovation receives no re c o g n i ­
tion.
Recent studies indicate that during this

18
early period the i n n o v a t i o n is seen piecemeal;
no one sees the forest w h i c h comprises the trees.
Its rap id spread follows r e c o g n i t i o n of the
inclusive de s i g n . . .
5.

Communities vary in the deg ree to w h i c h they take
on new practices.
Indications are that this is
a community characteristic.
A co mmunity that is
slow to adopt one i n n o v a t i o n tends to be s l o w to
adopt others.
A p i o n e e r i n one ar ea tends to be
a pi o n e e r in o the r areas.

6.

E x p l a n a t i o n of the d iff ere nce s in edu cat ion al
a d a p t a b i l i t y of communi tie s can be found in no
small degree in the c h a r act er of the population*
p a r t i c u l a r l y in the level of the pub lic 's u n d e r ­
st anding of what schools can do, and citizens*
feeling of need for e d u c a t i o n for their children.
This appears to Bet the po stu re of the community
toward financial s u p p o r t , and toward what teach ers
are p e r m i t t e d to do and tends to shape the staff
by i n f l u enc ing p e r s o n n e l se lected and kept in the
community.

7.

The s tre ngt h of these p o p u l a t i o n factors appears
to be in u n d e r s t a n d i n g and e x p e c t a t i o n s . While
u n d e r sta ndi ngs and expecta tio ns are somewhat
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h factors like o c c u p a t i o n and
e d u c a t i o n of p arents (and of those in p o l i t i c a l
p o w e r In the community), they can be altered.
Thus, they w oul d appear to offer one of the most
re spo n s i v e areas for a d m i n i s t r a t i v e action, both
to capita liz e on g ood u n d e r s t a n d i n g and e x p e c t a ­
tions where they are not present.

8.

It may be hypoth esi zed that a far str onger school
is now in the making, a nd that Its threads are
present in every com munity of any size.
As the
image be comes clearer, the threads that fit the
p a t t e r n wi ll p r o s p e r . . . .
W i t h cla ri f i c a t i o n
of the image, d i f f u s i o n t hrough m o s t of the
country's school systems will occur rapidly,
r e gar d l e s s of what the cost implicat ion s may
prove to be.

9.

The g o l d e n strand a mon g the bu ndles of haywire
about us w oul d appear to be a dop t i o n of
r e spo n s i b i l i t y by the school that all chi ldr en

19
shall l e a r n , and the giving up of the guiding
principle of offering opportunity that was
adequate for the 19th century . . . (pp. 325-3 2 7 )
-Mort offers three suggestions as guides to innova­
tors. . First,

any meaningful evaluation of an Innovation

must include the effect of the Innovation,

overt and

covert, upon the entire system Into which It Is introduced.
Second,

the realization that the dif fusion of an

innovation is very slow whether it Is among school
systems or among individual teachers in one school.
This knowledge would serve to prevent abandonment of a
good idea before It has had a sufficient chance to
become established.
Third, Mort suggests that when an innovation appears
to be spreading even more slowly than expected, the value
of that Innovation and the effort necessary to obtain
normal adoption should be carefully evaluated.
Research in the diffusion of educational Innova­
tions has continued since the initial thrust by Mort,
et.al.

The following are examples of studies wh ich have

Investigated the relationship between size and financial
variables and Innovativeness.
Richland (196 8 ) attempted to define an operational
Index of Innovativeness for school administrators.

In

his study, Richland concluded that the two factors which
had the highest relationship with innovative behavior

20
were urbanity and t e a c h e r s ’ salaries.

Urban ity was

defined as the c onc e n t r a t i o n of p o p u l a t i o n w i t h the
greater c o n c e n tra tio ns as soc i a t e d wi th innovativeness.
The hi g h e r average t e a c h e r ’s salary was also r e l a t e d to
more innova tiv e behavior.
S i m i l a r findings have b e e n rep or t e d by others
(Breivogel,

1967; Preising,

1968; Spencer,

1967).

B rei vogel i solated several factors w h i c h c o n t r i but ed
si gnificantly to the v ariance in the a d o p t i o n of
educati ona l innovati ons in N e w J e r s e y public school
districts.

These significant factors were,

of importance:

Su p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s salary, average

teacher's salary,
teachers'

in order

district size,

i.e.

enrollment,

salaries per pupil, per pupil expenditures,

and the n u m b e r of staff p e r 1000 pupils.

These six

factors a c c o u n t e d for 33 per cent of the va ria nce in
innovativeness wit h the sup eri nte nde nt' s

salary

ac cou n t i n g for 29 p er cent alone.
Pr eis ing

(1968), in a ddi t i o n to i n v e s t i g a t i n g the

relatio nsh ips b e t w e e n i nno vativeness,
a d min ist rat iv e succession,

staff tenure and

also studied per pup il

expenditure and the size of schools and school districts.
Innovativeness in this study dealt w i t h the a d o p t i o n of
structural innovations,
team teaching,
periods.

such as use of teacher aides,

class size variation,

and length of class

Pr eising concluded that pe r pupil expendit ure

21
made a significant difference In innovativeness, but
staff tenure and the size of school districts did not
make a difference.
Further support for the idea that financial
variables and population, of district variables, are
important in the diffusion of educational innovations,
comes from the study of constituent school districts
within one intermediate school district in Michigan.
Spencer

(1967) studied the relationships between 54

district and superintendent variables and the degree
of adoption of 52 educational innovations.

He found

that 23 factors made a significant difference in the
adoption of i n n o v a t i o n s .

Among these factors were

salary of the superintendent, population of the district,
per pupil cost of operation,

school census density, and

geographic size of the school districts.

Spencer

concluded that characteristics of the superintendent
and wealth of the school district were excellent
predictors of innovativeness.

The salary of the super­

intendent, educational level of the superintendent, and
per pupil revenues from Federal grants accounted for
71 p e r cent of the variance in innovativeness.
The evidence from the above studies suggests that
size and financial factors are related to the adoption
of educational innovations.

Because of this evidence

these factors are included in the present study.

22
Interme dia te School Districts
S p e n c e r ’s study is also re l a t e d to the present
study because of its i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the role o f the
intermediate school district office in the a d o p t i o n
process.

I n t e ra cti on b e t w e e n local school district

personnel and the interm edia te office were con cluded
to be good predict ors

of innovativeness.

S pencer also

concluded that the Oak lan d In termediate School Dis trict
office p rov i d e d significant leadership in the i n t r o ­
duction of new pr actices in its local constituent
school districts.
Spencer's study is important because it was the
only study found by this r e s e a r c h e r that used i n t e r ­
me diate school districts in Mic hig an as the p o p u l a t i o n
in the study of innovativeness.

Eve n tho u g h the focus

of Spencer's study was the innovat ive nes s of local
school districts wi t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r intermed iat e
school district,

it strongly suggests that the i n t e r ­

mediate school district plays an important role in the
ad option of educat ion al innovations.
Another study wh ich focuses on M i c h i g a n I n t e r ­
mediate School Districts deals only indire ctl y wit h
the concept of in nov ati ven ess

(Osborne,

1969)* This

study attempts to construct a m o d e l for int erm edi ate
school districts to use in the devel opm ent of i n s t r u c ­
tional improvement services.

Chapter II of Osborne's

23
study pro vides an ex cellent hi sto ry of the d e v e l o p m e n t
of int ermediate school dis tricts in the United States.
03borne found that 32 states have some p r o v i s i o n for a
unit of e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f u n c t ion ing b e t w e e n
state and local levels but there is an apparent

lack of

research dea lin g with this type of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e unit.
He concluded that m ore r e s e a r c h is ne e d e d to help define
the functions and probl ems of I n t e r m e d i a t e school d i s ­
tricts.

This p o s i t i o n is also su pported by a series

of formal r eso lut ion s ado pte d by the A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n
of School A d m i n ist rat ors

since 195^-

These r e s o l uti ons

stress the importance of the study of i n t e r me dia te
school districts

(Isenberg,

1967).

The present study is an attempt to c o n t ri but e a
better u nde r s t a n d i n g of the f unct ion and pro b l e m s

of

intermediate school districts in the a d o p t i o n of special
education p rog ram s to meet the e d u c a tio nal needs of
handicapped children.
Research in Lea der shi p B eha v i o r
Prior to 1 9 ^ 7 > the focus of r e s e a r c h on leadership
was on the personal c h a r a ct eri sti cs or p e r s o n a l i t y
traits of p ersons who were ju d g e d to be e ffe ctive
Leadership studies were sum mar i z e d by J enkins

leaders

( 1 9 ^ 7 ) > who

came to three conclusions on the basis of the re search
prlfir to that time.
characteristics

had

First,

no single trait or group of

been i s olated which sets off the

24
leader fro m the mem b e r s of his group.

Second,

leaders hip

Is specific to the p a r t i c u l a r sit ua t i o n u n d e r investigation.
Jenkins'

third c o n c l u s i o n was that leaders tend to exhibit

certain c h a r act eri sti cs in com mon w i t h m e m b e r s of their
group,

es pec ial ly interests and social background.

This

conclusion relates to the p a r a l l e l f i n d i n g in c o m m u n i c a t i o n
research of the pri nc i p l e of homophily.

H o m o p h i l y is the

tendency for those p ersons who are si milar to interact
(Rogers,

1962, p.

233).

These conclusi ons w ere reac hed by other re s e a r c h e r s
and social scientists and lead to the de v e l o p m e n t of a
series of studies at Ohio State University.

This res e a r c h

has focused on the b e h a v i o r of l e a d e r s .
Stogdill

(1948)

also a rri ved at the c o n c l u s i o n that

the trait approac h to leader ship is e s s e n t i a l l y untenable.
He went on to explore m e t h o d s of d e t e r m i n i n g p a t t e r n s of
leadership behavior.

The p r o b l e m that faced l eadership

researchers was very apparent.

There were no i nst rum ent s

for as ses s i n g leaders hip behavior.
The group of leadership r e s e a r c h e r s at Ohio State,
(Hemphill,

1949; H emphill and Coons,

Fleishman,

1953; Halpin,

1955;

1950; Harris,

Stogdill,

1952;

1 9 5 7 )> have

con­

tributed muc h to the d e v e l o pme nt of the L e a d e r s h i p B e h a v i o r
Descrip tio n Q u e s t io nna ire

(LBDQ).

The LBD Q was c o n s t r uct ed

from ideas dev el o p e d by ma ny wri ters but p r i n c i p a l l y by
Hemphill and Coons et.al.

(1950).

25
Leaders hip b e h a v i o r is defined as t h e . b e h a v i o r of
an i ndividual who is i n v o l v e d in dir ect ing group a c t i v ­
ities.

The d ime nsi ons of the LBDQ are " con sideration"

and " i n i t i a t i n g - s t r u c t u r e ."

The c o n s i d e r a t i o n d i m e n s i o n

measures the amount a n d a u t h e nti cit y of the a t t e nti on
that the leader gives to the needs of his followers.

The

initiating s tru cture d i m e n s i o n evaluates the degree to
which a leader o rga n i z e s the task to be accomplished.
These two dim ens ion s

could be compared to staff o rie nte d

and task o r i e n t e d ap p r o a c h e s respectively.
The LBDQ has b e e n used in several fields.

In

business and industry the L B D Q has b e e n use d in the
evaluation of s upe rvi sor y tr ain ing programs,
et.al.,

1955;

of leaders

Harris,

1952), m e a s u r eme nt of at tit ude

(Fleishman,

1 9 5 3 ) » and evaluations of hum an

relations t raining and supervis ory behavior,
1953).

(Fleishman

(Fleishman,

The LBD Q has also bee n used in m i l i t a r y and

educational l e a d e rsh ip studies

(Halpin,

1955).

The LBDQ was use d in several studies w h i c h related
to the leadership b e h a v i o r of school superintendents,
(Halpin,

1956,

1958,

1959).

Ha lpi n again emphasiz ed

the ab and onm ent of the trait approach,
of leader- gro up relationship,

the importance

and the influence of the

Institutional se tting on l eader behavior.

Attention

was focused on the a dmi nis tra tor 's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of
group a c c o m p l i s h m e n t and group m a i n t a i n a n c e .

These

26
responaibi Lities are directly related to the initiatingstructure and consideration dimensions of the LBDQ.

The

Influence of the institutional situation was of such
magnitude that it lead to the development of an instrument
to measure the climate of schools,

(Halpin and Croft,

1962 ).
Organizational Climate Research
The concept of organizational climate has many
facets.

Climate is related to other terms such as

situation,

conditions,

circumstances,

and environment.

These terms have been used by various sources to
describe or explain the differences in behavior of
individuals and groups w h e n faced with similar problems
or t a s k s .
Although each writer knows what he means by climate
or environment and usually transmits at least a general
understanding to the reader,

there is a clear need to

deal with environmental or climatic determinants in a
systematic manner.
The Division of Research, Harvard Business School,
has made an attempt to deal systematically with the
concepts of environment and organizational climate,
(Tagiuri and Litwin, 1968).

Tagiuri states certain

problems which must be solved before the concept of
organizational climate can be used with any degree of

27
agreement on a definition.

Ta giuri

(1968),

identifies

the fol low ing four difficulties:
a.

d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n the obj ective and
subjective e n v i ro nme nt
d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n the p e r s o n and the
situation
d et e r m i n i n g what aspects of the environ men t
ne ed to be sp ecified
i d e n tif yin g the structures and dynamics of the
environ men t (p. 1 3 )

b.
c.
d.

In his di s c u s s i o n of the a spects of the environment,
Tagiuri points out that the focus of i n v e s t i g a t i o n is
generally the aspect in the sit uat ion w h i c h is of int erest
to the investigator.

Since the specific aspects of the

environment involve the i ndi vidu al interest of the
Investigator ,"t her e is yet no useful set of definitions
of e nvi ron men tal terms, nor have e x i s t i n g terms b een
used consistently"

(p.

1 6 ).

Al though there are many ways of d e f i n i n g climate,
in every case it refers to some aspect of the si tuation
which effects the b eha vio r of an individu al or a group.
Tagiuri

(1968) offers the following d e f i n i t i o n for

O r g a ni zat ion Climate:
O r g a ni zat ion al climate Is a rel ati v e l y en dur ing
quality of the Int e r n a l environment of an
or gan iza tio n that, (a) is e x p e r ie nce d by its
members, (b) influences their behavior, and
(c) can be d esc r i b e d in terms of values of a
pa r t i c u l a r set of ch ara cteristics (or attributes)
of the organization.
(p. 16)
If we accept this de fin itio n of o rga niz ati ona l
climate,

then our p r o b l e m becomes one of op e r a t i o n a l i z i n g

--------------------------

28
the characteristics

(or attributes)

of the organization

and of d etermining what variables should be studied.
Such an attempt is that of Hal pin and Croft

(1962).

After being involved in the leadership behavior research
reported earlier in this chapter', Halpin and Croft decided
to construct an instrument which would measure certain
aspects of the environment or organizational climate of
schools.
Over 1000 items were screened and tested on e l e m e n ­
tary school populations until 64 items were finally
selected to make up the Organizational Climate D e s c r i p ­
tion Questionnaire

(OCDQ),

(See Appendix A).

The 64

items were factor analyzed using a p rin cipal component
solution w hich yielded eighteen factors with eigen values
greater than 1.00.

A varimax rotational solution was

then used to select the best eight orthogonal factors,
(Halpin,

1966, pp.

154-158; Halpin and Croft, 1962, pp.

42-43).
The population used to establish the norms for the
OCDQ consisted of 1151 respondents in 71 elementary
schools chosen from six different regions of the United
States.
The eight factors identified and incorporated into
subtests are defined by Halpin and Croft as f o l l o w s :
(Halpin and Croft, 1962):

D I S E N G A G E M E N T refers to the t e a c h e r s ’ te ndency
to be "not wi th it."
This d i m e n s i o n describes
a group w h i c h is "going t h r o u g h the m o t i o n s , "
a group that is "not i n gear" w i t h r esp e c t to
the task at hand.
It cor res pon ds to the m o r e
ge n e r a l concept of anomie as first d esc r i b e d
by Durkheim.
In short, this subtest focuses
u p o n the t e a c h e r s ’ b e h a v i o r in a t a s k - ori ent ed
situation.
H I N D R A N C E refers to the t e a c h e r s ’ feeling that
the p r i n c i p a l burdens t h e m w i t h r outine d u t i e s ,
committee demands, and other r e q u i r e m e n t s w h i c h
the tea chers construe as -unnecessary busy-work.
ES P R I T refers to ’’morale.*'
The teachers feel
that their soc ial npeds are b e i n g satisfied,
and that they are, at the same time, en joy ing
a sense of acc om p l i s h m e n t in t hei r Job.
IN TIM ACY refers to the teachers' enjoyment of
friendly social re lat ion s wi th e a c h other.
This
d i m e n s i o n de scr ibe s a so ci a l - n e e d s s a t i s f act ion
wh i c h is not n e c e s s a r i l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h taskac c o m p l i s h m e n t . . .
AL OOF NES S refers to b e h a v i o r by the p rin c i p a l
wh ich Is c h a r a c t e r i z e d as formal and impersonal.
He "goes by the book" and pr e f e r s to be g uid ed
by rules and p olicies r a t h e r than to deal w i t h
the teachers in an Informal, face-t o-f ace
situation.
His behavior, In brief, Is univ e r s a lis tic r ath er t h a n p art icu l a r i s t i c ;
no mon the tic rat her than idiosyncratic.
To
m a i n t a i n this style, he keeps hi m s e l f - a t least,
"e mot ion a l l y " - a t a d ist ance from his staff.
P R O D U C T I O N EMP H A S I S ref ers to b e h a v i o r by the
p r i n c i p a l w h i c h is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by close s u p e r ­
vi s i o n of the staff.
He Is h ighly dir ect ive and
plays the r ole of a "straw bos s."
His c o m m u n i c a ­
tion tends to go in only one d i r e c t i o n and he is
not sensitive to fe edb ack from the staff.
TH R U S T refers to b e h a v i o r by the p r i n c i p a l wh i c h
is c h a r a ct eri zed by his e vident effort in t ryi ng
to "move the or gan i z a t i o n . "
"Thrust" b e h a v i o r
is m a r k e d not by close supervision, but by the
p r i n c i p a l ’s attempt to m o t i v a t e the teachers
th rough the example w h i c h he p e r s o n a l l y sets . .

8.

C ONSIDERATION refers to behavior by the principal
w h i c h Is characterized by an Inclination to treat
the teachers " h u m a n l y , ” to try to do a little
something extra for them in hu man terms.
(pp.'
40-41)

The scores on each of the above subtest factors were
charted on profiles for each of the 71 schools.

Halpin

and Croft analyzed these profiles and found that there
were similarities between groups of profiles.

They

classified the profiles of the 71 elementary schools
into six Organiza tio nal Climates
174-181).

(Halpin,

1966, pp.

The six organizational climates were thought

of as occupyi ng various positions on a continuum from
"open" to "closed."

The six organizational climate ,

types are as follows:

open, autonomous,

familiar, paternal, and closed.

controlled,

Since the present study

is concerned only with the subtest scores,

the six

organizational climates will not be discussed further
here.
Each item of the OCDQ is a d esc rip tio n of staff or
principal behavior.

(See Appendix A).

Each respondent

is asked to indicate the frequency of the indicated
behavior in his school according to the following scale:
(Halpin,

1966, p. 146):

1.

Rarely occurs

2.

Sometimes occurs

3.

Of ten occurs

4.

Very frequently occurs

31
The scores on each subtest wer e then s t a n d ar diz ed
so that they had a m e a n of* 50 and a sta nda rd dev iat ion
of ten.
The re l i a b i l i t y of the O C D Q subtest was m e a s u r e d
by three methods.

The first m e t h o d of d e t e r m i n i n g r e l i ­

ability was the s p l i t - h a l f method.

The s eco nd m e t h o d

was the c o m p a r i s o n of e ven and odd n u m b e r e d re spo nde nts
scores.

The third estimate was o bta ine d by c omp u t i n g

the test score communal !ti es from the three factor
rotational so lut ion of the eight subtests.

Since hig h

communality can only occur wh en there is equivalence,
the commun ali ty was i nte rpre ted as a co eff ici ent of
equivalence.
U s ing all three m ethods of e s t i m a t i n g reliability,
the O C D Q subtests were de ter min ed to be su fficiently
dependable

(Halpin and Croft,

1962, p.

65) •

T h e va li dit y of the O C D Q has b e e n t e s t e d in several
ways.

Non -pa r t i c i p a n t o bservers have b e e n u s e d to rate

schools on each of the subtest factors

(McFadden,

1 9 6 6 ).

The ratings by the n on- par tici pan t observers were com ­
pared to the act ual subtest scores and were not s tat is­
tically different.
An ot h e r app ro a c h to the v alid ity of the OCDQ has
been to compare other scales w h i c h pur port to mea sur e
similar concepts

(Andrews,

1965)*

The comparis ons have

been m a d e b e t w e e n the O C D Q factors and the LBDQ, the

Myers-Briggs scale,

teacher satisfaction sc&le, related

principal effectiveness scales, and school achievement
Index.

The conclusions of Andrew's study were that the

overall climate designations of "open" and "closed" do
not predict that wh ich is not better predicted by the
eight subtests and, that the subtests of the OCDQ are
reasonably valid measures of important aspects of the
principal's relationship with his staff.
The most direct approach to validati on of the
OCDQ is through replication of the original study
(Vanderlain,

1 9 6 8 ; Brown, 1965).

In these studies

factor analyses were used which produced essentially
the same factors and factor loadings for items as the
original OCDQ study.

In addition Va nde rla in correlated

the esprit subtest with a Morale Tendency Score

(MTS).

This co rrelation was significant at the p < .01 level.
Morale of teachers as me asured by the Chandler-Mathis
Morale Inventory has also been compared to the OCDQ
(Koplyay,

1966).

This study found that the morale level

of seventeen elementary schools was highly related to
the Esprit factor In these schools.
The OCDQ was developed in a study of 71 elementary
schools.

The norms were based on that population.

Halpin states that whether used in school, military
units or hospitals, he would expect to see the same
factors and profiles develop,

(Halpin, 1966,

132).

33
The O CDQ has b e e n used in a study of nurses in a
hospital setting by

Mu l a i k (Halpin,

1966, p.

132).

The

OCDQ was found to be applica ble to the ho spi tal setting.
Secondary schools have also b e e n u s e d as the p o p u l a t i o n
in OCDQ studies
1966).

(Sargent,

1966; Andrews,

1 9 6 5 J Tanner,

These studies show that alt hou gh secondary schools

tend to have a more closed climate than e l e m e n t a r y schools,
the O C D Q is approp ria te for m e a s u r i n g the climate of
secondary schools.
Co mpa ris ons have also b e e n m a d e of the a p p l i c a ­
bility of the OCDQ to urban and rural school settings
(Tanner,

1966; Flanders,

1 9 6 6 ).

frequently had p e r c e i v e d "open"
schools tended to have more
in either case,

The urban schools most
climate wh ile rural

" f a m i l i a r 11 climates.

However,

the OC DQ ap peared to be ap p r o p r i a t e for

me asuring the climate of both ur ban and rural schools.
The s'tudy of the relati ons hip s b e t w e e n so cio -ec ono mic
status of schools and the OC DQ has p r o d u c e d similar
results

(Virjo,

1965;

Koplyay,

1966).

Again the O CDQ

was judged to be applica ble in bo th high and low so cio ­
economic school settings.
Race has b e e n studied as it relates to o r g a n ­
izational climate.

Hinson

(1 9 6 5 ) found in a comparison

of 65 white and 56 Negro schools in Georgia that the
Negro schools were pe rce ive d as m o r e neg ativ e in terms
of org ani zat ion al climate.

Flanders

(1966)

found that

34
u r ban-white facilities most f req uen tly p e r c e i v e d their
schools as " o p e n 1* while ru r a l - w h i t e

facilities p e r c e i v e d

their schools as h a v i n g a " f a m i l i a r 11 climate.

Rural and

urban N e g r o facilities p e r c e i v e d their schools as h a v i n g
either a "paternal" or "closed" climate.
teachers,

Among wh ite

the t end enc y toward "openness" was dir ect ly

r e lated to i n c r e a s i n g tenure w h i l e N egr o t eachers in
all tenure categori es tended to pe rc e i v e t hei r schools
toward the "closed" end of the continuum.
Somewhat different results were obt a i n e d w h e n the
results of the eight subtests were e xam i n e d (Hightower,
1965).

In this study, Negro teachers e xpe ri e n c e m o r e

Disengagement;

less Hindrance, equal Esprit, and m u c h

more Intimacy,

than white teachers.

Due to the subtest

score di ffe ren ce in w hic h all fa vor ed the "closed" end
of the c ont i n u u m for N e g r o schools, H i g h t o w e r se riously
q u est ion ed the effects of a s e g r e g a t e d so ciety on the
organiza tio nal climate of s c h o o l s .
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n O C D Q scores and size of
the school has b e e n i nve s t i g a t e d in b oth e l e m e n t a r y and
secondary schools.

Cook

elementary school staff,
conversely,
the climate.

(1 9 6 5 ) found that the sm all er the
the more "open" was the climate

the larger the staff size, the m ore
In a similar study Cole

"closed"

(1 9 6 5 ) looked at

the subtest scores and their r e l a t i o n s h i p to el eme n t a r y
school size.

He found that schools w i t h fro m two to

35
four teachers per age level appeared, to be ass oci ate d
with higher Esprit and less Disengagement and Hindrance
and probably repres ent ed the op timum sized schools in
terms of organizational climate.

However, the size of

school did not appear to be related to the p r i n c i p a l ’s
Aloofness,

Production emphasis, Trust or Consideration.

In apparent contradiction to the two previous studies,
McWilliams

(1967)

found that the school size did not

make a significant difference in organizational climate
of nine high schools.

The above studies are of interest

as they relate to the po pul atio n factor used in the
present study as a measure of size of i ntermediate school
districts.
Personal factors r elating to teachers and p r i n c i ­
pals have received attention in many OCD Q s t u d i e s .

More

experienced, older and more stable faculties are ass oci ­
ated with open climates while faculties w ith a high
percentage of young, inexperienced,

or new teachers

appear to suffer from high Hindrance and low Esprit
(Cook, 1965; Hightower,

1965).

T e a c h e r s ’ attitudes toward students have been
studied in samples of relatively open and closed cl i­
mates

(Blaire, 1966).

She found that when schools were

grouped by their OCDQ classification,

there were d i f ­

ferences in the means scores of the attitude towards
students, as measured by the Minnesota Te acher Attitude
Inventory.

.36
The re l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n O C D Q scare and r e c o g n i z e d
pe r s o n a l i t y i nve nto rie s have b e e n exp lo r e d in several
studies.

No d i f f e r e n c e was found in the Cattels 16

Factor P e r s o n a l i t y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and ext rem e ca teg ori es
of leader b e h a v i o r

(Bell,

1 9 6 8 ).

The m e a n scores of

the M i n n e s o t a T e a c h e r A tti tude Inv ent ory were found to
be s ign i f i c a n t l y hig her in the mo st
schools than in other climates
teacher p e r s o na lit y,

"open" climate

(Null, 1965)*

Individu al

as m e a s u r e d by the My ers Briggs

Type I n d i c a t o r was found to have an impact upon
teachers'
level

p e r c e p t i o n s of blimate and on s a t i s f a c t i o n

(Collins,

1965)-

Ot her p e r s o n a l i t y factors,
(Hamlin,
(Brust,

1 9 6 6 ; Collins,
1 9 6 6 ), d o g m a t i s m

psychological health
(Anderson,

1965)* t e a c h e r s e l f - con cep t
(Kirk,

(Ford,

196*1; Murphy,

such as job s a t i s f act ion

1965s La Guttuta,

1966),

1966) and o ther factors

1 9 6 6 ), have b e e n found to be

related to e ither O C D Q climates or subtest

scores.

S o c i o m e t r i c met h o d s have b e e n used to subdivide
larger groups
responses

into subgroups for co mpa r i s o n w i t h OCDQ

(Anderson,

1965)*

O C D Q in Di ffu s i o n of I nnovations
Researc h
The c o m b i n a t i o n of the O CDQ wit h the study of
educatio nal innovati ons is of p a r t i c u l a r interest bec ause
of the focus of the present study on this c o m b i n a t i o n of
factors.

37
B o t h the L B D Q and O C D Q w ere used by R o o s a

(1968)

In a study of the a d o p t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l Innovations.
Roosa found no s i g n i fic ant r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n the
rate of a d o p t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l i nnov ati ons and openness
of climate.

However, he did find si gni fic ant r e l a t i o n ­

ships b e t w e e n rate of a d o p t i o n and e x p e n di tur e p er
pupil; b e t w e e n age of a d m i n i s t r a t o r and C o n s i d e r a t i o n
score

(the older the a d m i n ist rat or,

ation);

and b e t w e e n rate of a d o p t i o n and l eng th of

a d m i n ist rat or' s exp eri enc e
rate,

the leas c o n s i d e r ­

(the h i g h e r the ad opt i o n

the g re a t e r his experience).
M a r c u m (1 9 6 9 ) h ad the O reg on State D e p a r t m e n t of

E d u c a t i o n staff rate the m o s t and least innovati ve
schools in the state.

He then chose a sample of 15

schools fro m each ex treme of inn ova tiveness.
comparing these samples on O C D Q scores,

In

signif ica nt

di fferences w e r e found b e t w e e n ’'open'* and "closed"
climate schools on innovativeness.
I n n o va tiv ene ss wa s also s ign ifi can tly r e l a t e d
to age,

(the yo unger staffs were more Innovative);

experience,
innovative);

to

(the less e x p e r i e n c e d staffs were more
size of staff,

(larger staffs w e r e more

innovative).
A third study i n v e sti gat es the role of the
p r inc ipa l In the a d o p t i o n of In nov ati ve i n s t r uct ion al
practices

(Peach,

1 9 6 7 ).

In this study the OC DQ was

38
used to identify the climate of 35 schools.

The a d a p t ­

ability of the schools or the Ad aptive-Conventional
Orientation

(ACO) was me as u r e d and scores on the ACO

were compared by climate type.

No significant r e l a t i o n ­

ships were found b etween OCD Q subtest scores or climate
profiles and local ACO scores.
climate" and the

Hindrance

related to total ACO scores.

However, the "autonomous

subtest were significantly
Peach concluded that the

concept of "openness" of the system was not substantiated
as a factor contributing to adaptability.
Peach's study points out the limited usefulness of
the global concepts of climate but gives some evidence
that OCDQ subtest scores were useful,

in p red ict ing ad apt ­

ability or innovativeness.
Summary
Research in the di ffusion of innovations and
organizational climate have been reviewed in this
chapter.

Innovativeness,

the key concept in the

present study was defined as the extent to w hic h a social
system or individual adopts new ideas or programs prior
to their adoption by other similar social systems.
Opinion leadership refers to the extent to which the
opinions of a pe rson w i t h i n a social system is sought
by other members of that social system.

The concept

of cosmopoliteness refers to the extent to which

39
sources of Inf o r m a t i o n ext e r n a l to the social s yst em
are used by m embers of the social system.
The f oll owi ng g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s taken fro m p r e v i o u s
di ffusion of In nov a t i o n r e s e a r c h and w h i c h w i l l be
In vestigated by the p resent study wer e discussed:
1.
2.
3.

Ear l i e r adoptors halve a m o r e favorable
fi nan cia l p o s i t i o n t h a n later adoptors.
E a r l i e r adoptors are m o r e co smo pol ite than
later a d o p t o r s .
E a r l i e r adoptors have m ore opi nio n le a d e r ­
ship than later adoptors. (Rogers, 1962,
p. 313)
Studies are r e v i e w e d w h i c h suggest that r e l a t i o n ­

ships exist bet w e e n i n n o va tiv ene ss and c o s m o p o l i t e n e s s ,
opinion leadership,

financial factors, and size factors

wi thi n social systems in ge ne r a l and ed u c a t i o n a l systems
in particular.
The l iterature con cer nin g r e s e a r c h in i nte rme dia te
school dis tricts is very scarce.
are r e p o r t e d in this chapter.
1969)

However, two studies

One study

(Osborne,

stresses the importa nce and lack of r ese arc h

concern ing the problems and functions of in ter med iat e
school districts, whi le the other

(Spencer,

1 9 6 7 ) is an

investigation of innov ati ven ess w i t h i n the c o n s t itu ent
school districts in one M i c h i g a n I n t e r med iat e School
District.
Leadership b e h a v i o r r e s e a r c h is r e v i e w e d as an
antecedent to the developm ent of o rga ni z a t i o n a l climate
research.

Most of the l eadership b e h a v i o r re se a r c h was

40
done at Ohio State University during the late 1940's and
through the 1950's.
The major thrust of organizational climate research
in education has been by Halpin arid Croft

(1962).

Their

development of the Organizational Climate Description
Questionnaire

(OCDQ) is discussed in detail.

Each of the

subtests of the OCDQ defined and the scoring procedure is
explained.
The validity of the OCDQ has been tested by cor­
relation studies with other measures which purport to
measure the same concepts.
are reported.

Several of these studies

In addition studies which relate OCDQ

factors with race, size of school, personality traits
of staff and administrators, and socio-economic setting
are discussed.
Finally,
is reported.

the use of the OCDQ in innovation research
These studies show relationship between

organizational climate variables and the innovativeness
of schools and school districts.

CHAP T E R III
METHODOLOGY

Introduction
In this ch a p t e r the m e t h o d o l o g y of this study is
presented.

The d e f i n i t i o n and co m p o s i t i o n of the p o p u ­

lation is r epo rte d in considerable detail.

The instrum ent s

used in the study are d esc rib ed and the m et h o d s of scoring
explained.
The specific nature of the p r o b l e m in ve s t i g a t e d is
pr ese nte d through o p e r a t i o n a l definitions of the v ari abl es
used in this study an d the p r e s e n t a t i o n of 17 testable
hypotheses.
The treatment of the d a t a is e xpl a i n e d wi th re fer e n c e
to the com put er p rog ram s and types of ana lys is used d uri ng
various phases of data p r o c e s s i n g for this study.
Population
Intermediate School Dis tri cts
The p o p u l a t i o n for this study consists of the special
education departme nts of Interme dia te
Michigan.

school di stricts In

For the pu r p o s e of this study, Interm edi ate

school district special e d u c a t i o n per sonnel will be r e f e r ­
red to as d epa rtm ent s of special education.

Interme dia te

School District Is d ef i n e d as an edu c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
unit fu n c t i o n i n g b e t w e e n the state and local level un d e r
the p r o v i s i o n s of M i c h i g a n ’s Public Act 18 o f 195^ and
Public Act 190 of 1962.
The p o p u l a t i o n is f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t e d in two ways.
First, only those int e r m e d i a t e dist ricts we re sel ect ed
which levy a special e d u c a t i o n tax und er Public Act 190
of 1962.

This req uir eme nt insured that every i n t e r me dia te

district in the p o p u l a t i o n had a similar fi nan cia l s t r u c ­
ture.

The

second r e q u i rem ent

for in clu sio n in the p o p u ­

lation was that the in ter med iat e district em plo y a d i r e c t o r
of special education.
For the pu rpo se of this study,

the D i r e c t o r of Special

E d uca tio n is de fin ed as an ed uca t o r e m p l o y e d by an i n t e r ­
mediate school d istrict who:

(1) a dmi nis ter s or supervises

special e d u c a t i o n programs on a full time basis

(2) meets••

the requir eme nts for c e r t i f i c a t i o n as a d i r e c t o r of special
education set by the State of M i c h i g a n and

(3) for w h o m the

in termediate school district re cei ves re im b u r s e m e n t
State of Michigan.

f rom the

The r e q u ire men t that the d i r e c t o r be

reimbursed by the State insures that the d i r e c t o r has full
time r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the o p e r a t i o n of the i n t e r m edi ate
department of special education.
All the interm edi ate school district

special e d u c a t i o n

departments in Mi ch i g a n as defined above are used in this
study except for one in w h i c h the d ire cto r of special

43
ed uca t i o n was

111 for an e xte n d e d p e r i o d and an ade quate

basis for s t a f f - d l r e c t o r I n t e r a c t i o n was not available.
T w ent y- nin e di rec tor s and four hun d r e d n ine ty - o n e
special ed uca t i o n staff m e m b e r s
Table

(491)

are i ncl ude d in the study.

1 lists the i n t e r med iat e school d ist r i c t s which

pa r t i c i p a t e d in this study a l o n g w i t h basic data for each
district.

The n umb er of p a r t i c i p a t i n g s taff mem ber s

from

each i n t e r me dia te school dis tri ct special e d u c a t i o n d e p a r t ­
ment ra nge d from three to 74.
P o p u l a t i o n Base is d e f i n e d as the total n u m b e r of
public and p r i v a t e school students in grades K-12 in con ­
stituent districts w i t h i n each interme dia te school district.
The in ter med iat e school d ist ricts in the p o p u l a t i o n h ad a
wide range in th eir n u m b e r of r esi den t school-a ge students,
from 8,206 to 264,339.
The f ina ncial status of the int e r m e d i a t e school d i s ­
tricts in the p o p u l a t i o n also v a r i e d widely.
e q ual ize d e v a l u a t i o n

The state

(SEV) of p r o p e r t y w i t h i n each i n t e r ­

mediate district var ied fr om a low of $ 28,152,350 to a hi gh
of $ 4,0 43, 767 ,08 9 w ith a m e d i a n of $210,717,564 SEV.
The amount of a u t h o r i z e d Public Act 18 m l l l a g e
(earmarked funds

for special education) r a n g e d f r o m

mills to 2.0 mills w ith the m e d i a n and m o d e P.A.
of .75 mills.

chapter in the d e f i n i t i o n o f f i n a n ­

cial base school-age population.
«■

18 m ll l a g e

These fi nancial d iff ere nce s will be d i s ­

cussed later in this
^

.5

TABLE 1.— Basic data on Michigan Intermediate School districts participating in
this study.
Name of
Intermediate
School District
Bay-Arenac
Berrien
Branch
Calhoun
Charlevoix-Emmet
Delta-Schoolcraft
Dickinson-Iron
Eaton
Genesee
*
Hillsdale
Huron
Ingham
Ionia
Isabella
Jackson
Kalamazoo Valley
Kent
Lenawee
Livingston
Marquette-Alger
Monroe
Montcalm
Oakland
Ottawa
Saginaw
*
Shiawassee
St. Joseph
Tuscola
Washtenaw

Number
of staff
Participating

School-age
Population

13
15
12
10
15
11
6
13
15
10
11
33
8
3
29
14
74
22
18
19
3
7
50
14
20
21
16
15
23

37,347
49,043
8,805
39,989
11,235
13,760
10,586
18,137
87,220
9.223
10,492
68,412
15,085
8,206
39,848
50,120
120,069
23,901
13,984
20,797
34,258
13,759
264,760
37,359
42,458
19,249
13,826
15,663
49,609

State Equalized
Valuation
$

509,752,387
614,863,482
105,213,018
495,582,415
199,295,798
129,847,969
126,400,400
182,412,166
1 ,061,962,708
102,458,852
171,964,744
1 ,077,516,800
136,577,174
92,004,559
497,732,017
833,081,004
1,518,961,871
314,667,987
191,304,471
176,847,857
412,067,794
169,702,354
4,043,767,089
448,834,733
478,487,747
196,546,646
209,083,312
210,717,564
1 ,006,627,988

Pub. Act 18
Mlllage rate
Authorized
.75
.75
1.75
.50
.50
1.00
•50
1.00
.50
1.00
.50
1.75
.50
.75
1.50
2.00
.50
.50
.75
1.00
.50
.50
1.00
.50
.75
1.50
1.00
.75
1.00

Pub. Act 18
funds per
Child
$10.24
9.40
20.91
6.20
8.87
2.05
1.67
10.06
6.09
11.11
8.20
27.56
4.52
8.41
18.74
33.24
6.33
6.58
10.26
8.50
. 6.01
6.17
15.27
6.01
8.45
15.32
15.12
10.09
20.29

•Figures exclude large cities which do not participate in Public Act 18.

45
For the pu r p o s e of this study,

the va ri a b l e of F i n a n ­

cial Base is d ef i n e d as the total amount of Public Act 18
funds a u t h o r i z e d w i t h i n the inte rme dia te school di strict
in fiscal year 1969-70 divided by the p o p u l a t i o n base,

e.g.

total nu m b e r of students K-12 w i t h i n the i n t e r med iat e school
district.
P.A.

Fi nancial base ranged f r o m $1.67 to $33*24 of

18 funds per child.
The g eog ra p h i c d i s t r i b u t i o n of the int e r m e d i a t e d i s ­

tricts in the p o p u l a t i o n is dep ict ed in Figure 1.

All

m a jor areas of M i c h i g a n are r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h three d i s ­
tricts in the u p p e r peninsula, two districts in the N o r t h e r n
Lower Peninsula,

and the re mai nde r of the dis tr i c t s in the

middle and s o u t h e r n p ort ion s of the Lower Peninsula.
Ea ch int e r m e d i a t e school di str ict in the study was
assigned a code nu m b e r by selecting r a n d o m numbers from
a table

(Walker and Lev,

1958, pp.

280-281).

One district

code number was a l t e r e d because the r a n d o m n umber ass i g n e d
coincided w i t h the district i d e n t i f i c a t i o n n um b e r ass ign ed
by the M i c h i g a n Departm ent of Education.

These r a n d o m

code numbers are used to identify school districts t h r o u g h ­
out the r e m a i n d e r of this study.
In termediate Special
E d u c a t i o n P ers o n n e l
Fo r the pu rp o s e of this study special e duc a t i o n
p e rso nne l is de f i n e d as those persons w h o are e mpl oye d
by the in ter med iat e school district as directors,
visors, diagnost ici ans ,

school social workers,

super­

speech

Figure 1 .— Graphic D istribution of Population.
Note:

Unshaded areas represent 29 Intermediate
School Districts pa rticipating in this
study.

47
c o r r e c t i o n i s t s , consultants for m e n t a l l y h a n d i c a p p e d
(Type C),

teacher consultants for the p h y s i c a l l y h a n d i ­

capped (Type 4), teachers of the h o m e b o u n d a n d / o r h o s p i ­
talized and other p e r s o n n e l In clu d i n g p h y s i c a l th erapists,
occupational therapists and consul tan ts for the em o t i o n a l l y
disturbed and consultants for lea r n i n g disabilities.
In con jun cti on w i t h the c o l l e c t i o n of the data used
in the testing of the hypoth ese s of this study,
biographical q u e s t ion nai re was administered.
of this q ues tio nna ire are r e p o r t e d in T abl e

a g eneral

The results
2.

The ages of the special e d u c a t i o n p e r s o n n e l a c c o r d ­
ing to p osi t i o n are r epo r t e d in Ta ble 2.

The m e a n age for

all special e d u c a t i o n p ers onne l Is 37 years.

The range of

mean age for pos itions range from 30.3 for s peech cor­
rectlonists to 43.0 for teachers of the hom eb o u n d and
hospitalized.
Of the total special e d u c a t i o n p e r s o n n e l In this
study,
female.

40 p er cent were male, while 60 p e r cent were
The extremes of the d i s t r i b u t i o n are r e p r e sen ted

by the directors,

90 per cent male,

10 p e r cent female,

and teacher counselor for the p h y s i c a l l y ha ndi cap ped
(Type 4), 13 per cent male versus 87 p e r cent female.
The m e a n number of years experie nce In the p resent p o s i ­
tion for the entire p o p u l a t i o n is 4.6 years, wit h Type C
consultants h avi ng the least,

(2.8) an d di rectors ha v i n g

the most experience In pos iti on

(6.4).

TA5LE 2
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Oti STAFF MEMBERS
Positions

Total He.
Responding
20-29

Directors
Supervisors
Diagnosticians
School Social Workers
Speech Correctionists
Type C Consultants
Teacher Consultants (Type 4)
Teachers of Homebound and/
or Hospitalized
Other
TOTAL

29
25
74
63
126
33 .
46

1
4
13
11
Sc
7
12

14
12
36
22
23
13
22

43
54
555"

11
20

3
17
15?

m
&

Directors
Supervisors
Diagnosticians
School Social Workers
Speech Correctionists '
Type C Consultants
Type 4 Consultants
Teachers of Homebound and/
or Hospitalized
Other
TOTAL

29
25
74
86
128
33
46

26
lo
50
36
26
13
6

42
54
5X5"

10
20
m

0-3
Directors
29
Supervisors
25
74
Diagnosticians
68
School Social Workers
128
Speech Correctionists
Type C Consultants
33
46
Type 4 Consultants
Teachers of Homebound and/
or Hospitalized
43
Other
. ... ... .-----iUr
.W M T .

Ages
43-4S

30-3?

Ssx®
?

*

3C

2

li

h**

j
2k

3t
32
55
60
45
67

V.

6'
2L

13
24
37
■T T

52
132
;r4l

32 76
34 63
3ir T 5

50-59

12
15
30
14'
4
11
8
14
TFT

.

3
3
7
24
3
6
0

2
3
3
1

8
2

8
1

1?

1
5
21
30
4?
11
17

8
6
TTff

11

3
1

IT

43
35
37
Kean iloof Years

10
13
35
43
34
26
16

13
7
29
32
29
6
23

6
5
10
6
14
1
5

0
0
0
0
1
0
c

' 6.4
5.5
5.2
4.5
4.2
2.8
5.4

24
34

14
18
X7T

5
1
5S

0
1
~7

4.3
3.8
4.6

w

n Present Staff
20 or over
10-19

40.7
33
38.5
42.5
30.3
40.2
35.4

:;s. Years
4-?

15
13
32
30
23
15
?4
7 .

...•

.ill

•>

Mean
Ages

I-;

;jo. Years Experience In Education
4-9
10-19
20-29

1
2
16
20
59
2
4

60 cr over

ni

5
4
4
6
4
3
0
14 .
4

sir

Mean
30 or over
1
1
1
2
0
2
1
. ..3......
1
r?

14.4
14.1
10.2
9.9
6.2
12.9
10.8
- 14,4-11.7
ITT

-t

oo

0-1
Director
Supervisors
Diagnosticians
School Social Workers
Speech Correctionists
Type C Consultants
Type *> Consultants
Teachers of Honebound and/
or Hospitalized*
Other
TOTALS

29
25
74
88
128
33
46

3
2
13
26
28
4
8

2
1
14
15
29
6
7

4
5
3
19
13
12
7

9
6
To

10
11
13?

4
12
T?

4
10
U?

Associate
Ho.
f
Directors
Supervisors
Diagnosticians
School Social Workers
Speech Correctionists**
Type C Consultants
Type 4 Consultants
Teachers of Honebound and/
or Hospitalized**
Other
TOTALS

29
25
74
88
126
33
46

0
0
0
0
3a
0
0

2.4

41

TF

&

1968-69

Nornr
Directors
Supervisors
Diagnosticians
School Social Workers
Speech Correctionists!
Type C Consultants
Type 4 Consultants
Teachers of Hoaebound and/
or Hospitalized
Other
TOTALS

29
25
74
88
126
32
46
41
54
51?

0
2
17
13
46
3
10

9
16

No. Years Experience In Special Education
2-3
*
X-5
%
6-7
*

1
1
12
14
32
0
1

■

42
54
51?

5

8

15

20

Highest Degree Held
Bachelors
Masters
Ho.
!
No.
1
0
0
5
15
82
9
14

6.7
17.0
65
27.3
30.4

19

46.3

M
TE?

3ltt

4
4

82.8
88
71.7
70.4
31.8
69.7
65.2

2
1
13
11
0
1
.1

22
27

53.7
50

0

351

5HT7

28.1

6

15.3

12

27.6
20
17.6
23.9
16.7
18.8
26.1

7.3
27.8

6

14.6

T7

iH

16
16.2

5
13
21
21

12

23
29
9
7

26.0

3
15
106

II? 5 0

Specialist
No.
I

24
22
53
62
40
23
30

13.8

14.8
36.5
9.4
21.7
29.6

16

4
3?

6.9
4.0
17.6
12.6
3
2.2

or

23.0

3E7E^

4

13.8

6

24
13.5
11.4
6.3
12.5
4.3

10
10

8
4
2

4
4

19
16
27
14
26
11
23
15
15
IE?

32

Doctorate
No.
4
3
2
3
0
1
0
1

10.3
8.0
4
.8
2.2

0
7.4

Year Highest Degree Was Attained
1966-67
1964-65
1962-63
NcT! r
Ho. I
No. %

23.0

22

17

‘

8 or over J

9.8

■5? ifcl”

5
I?

9.3

61 or before
~Kol -- *—

10

44.8
32
29.7
23.9
17.5
31.2

15

32.6

19
14
IW

46.3
25.9
58

13

8

22
21

22

One person did not respond to this iten.
Two individuals did not respond to this iten.
Two speech correctlpnlsts, one Type C Consultant, and two teachers of the honebound and/or hospitalized did not
respond to this iten.
*These Speech Correctionists are eaployed in an experimental program.

e»_

The mean number of years in e d u c a t i o n for the
entire population is 10.1 with a high of 14.M for d i r e c ­
tors and teachers of the home bou nd and hospitalized.
The lowest me an of experience in education was 6.2 years
for speech c o r r e c t i o n i s t s .
Table 2 also reports the n umber of years of e x p e ­
rience in special education for each po sit ion category.
Because the largest number of respondents had eight or
more years of experience, the percentages were not f i g ­
ured for this table.

The 166 persons who had over eight

years of experience in special education represent 32
per cent of the respondents, while only 76 or 15 per
cent of the respondents had one year or less experience
in special education.
The majority

(68.1 per cent) of special education

staff members held at least a masters degree, with 3 per
cent of the total population h old ing doctoral d e g r e e s .
The three speech correctionists which were the only
staff members with associate degrees were serving in an
experimental pr ogr am in one of the intermediate districts.
All of the directors held at least a masters degree with
10.3 per cent having earned

doctorates.

The general

education level of intermediate special education p e r ­
sonnel is quite high.
Finally, Table 2 reports the years that the highest
degrees were earned.

It is interesting to note that the

51
directo rs and teachers of h o m e b o u n d and h o s p i t a l i z e d have
both the greatest n u m b e r of years e xpe rie nce in e d u c a t i o n
and the g rea tes t p er cent of th eir group o b t a i n e d their
highest degree on or bef o r e 1961.
Of the a p p r o x i m a t e l y 550 special e duc a t i o n p e r s o n n e l
of the 29 int e r m e d i a t e school district
departments,

special e d u c a t i o n

528 r e s p o n d e d to the questionnaire.

Eight

answer sheets w ere d i s c a r d e d b e c a u s e of impro per m a r k i n g
or be cau se they wer e incomplete,

leaving a total of 520

respondents used in the a nalysis of dat a In this study.
Instruments
Or gan i z a t i o n a l Climate
De scr ipt ion Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
One i nst ru m e n t used in this study is the O r g a n i z a ­
tional Climate D e s c r i p t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
and Croft,

1 9 6 2 ).

(OCDQ)

(Halpin

The OCDQ was ch ose n for this study

because it d e s c r i b e s the ch ara ct e r i s t i c s of a g rou p and
its leader in b e h a v i o r a l terms.

The OCD Q consists of

64 Li ker t-t ype Items to w h i c h the special e d u c a t i o n
staff and the d i r e c t o r of special e d u c a t i o n respond.
Each item is a d e s c r i p t i o n o f either staff or d i r e c t o r
behavior.

(See A p p e n d i x B.)

The r esp ons e Is an i n d i c a ­

tion of the frequency w i t h w h i c h that p a r t i c u l a r be hav ior
occurs.

The re spo n s e s and their we ights are as follows:

52
Re sponse

Weights

1.

Very se l d o m occurs.

0

2.

Sometimes occurs

1

3-

O f t e n occurs.

2

4.

Very fre qu entl y occurs.

3

The 64 q u e s t io nna ire Items are d ivi ded into eight
subtest scales.

Pour of these subtests indicate group

variables while four subtests in dicate the b e h a v i o r of
the leader.

The group subtests are Dis engagement,

drance, Esprit,

and Intimacy.

tests are Aloofness,
Consideration.

Hin­

The leader b e h a v i o r s ub­

Pr oduc t i o n Emphasis, Thrust,

For the purpose of this study,

and

the o p e r a ­

tional de fin iti ons of the OCDQ v ari ables are as f o l l o w s :
Di sen gag eme nt is staff mem bers * b e h a v i o r in taskoriented situations w h i c h refers to the concept of "going
through the mot ions."

This var iable is o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d

as the dis en g a g e m e n t score on the OCDQ.
Hindrance is staff feelings that the d i r e c t o r b u r ­
dens them w i t h ro utine duties.

This var iable is o p e r a ­

tionalized by the h ind ran ce score on the OCDQ.
Esprit is morale, i.e.

staff's feelingB that their

social needs are b e i n g hiet while h a v i n g a sense of a c c o m ­
plishment on their job.

This vari abl e is o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d

as the esprit score on the OCDQ.
Intimacy is the s t a f f ' 3 e njoyment of friendly social
relations wi th staff members.

This v ariable is o p e r a ­

tionalized by the intimacy score in the OCDQ.

53
Aloofness Is the formal and Impersonal behavior of
the director of special education.

This variable is

operationalized by the aloofness score on the OCDQ.
Production Emphasis is highly directive,

close

supervision of the staff by the director of special e du­
cation.

This

tion emphasis

variable is operationalized by the pr o d u c ­
score on the OCDQ.

Thrust is behavior by the director which shows that
he sets a good example for his staff or motivates his
staff without

close supervision.

This variable is

tionalized by

the thrust score on the OCDQ.

opera­

Consideration is behavior of the director charac­
terized as treating the staff humanly.

This variable is

operationalized by the consideration score of the OCDQ.
Scores for each subtest were obtained by totaling
the weights for the responses to the items which comprised
each subtest or factor.

These factor scores were then

transformed into standardized scores with a mean of 50
and a standard deviation of ten.
The OCDQ subtest scores for each special education
staff were computed by averaging the scores of the staff
members within each district.

These scores are presented

in Appendix G.
Factor Analysis

(

The OCDQ was standardized and norraed on teachers
and principals of 71 elementary schools.

(See Appendix

54
A.)

In order to adapt the O C D Q to special e d u c a t i o n

departments of i n t e r m edi ate school districts,
of the items was altered.

the w o r d i n g

T he i nt e r m e d i a t e special e d u ­

cation departm ent s v e r s i o n is p r e s e n t e d in A ppe ndi x B.
Because of the a l t e r a t i o n of O C D Q items, this rev i s i o n
of the O C D Q was factor analyzed.
The factor analy sis of the re vised O C D Q had two
steps.

A pr inc ipa l componen ts so lut ion was r u n on the

revised O C D Q items.

The results of the p r i n c i p a l c o m ­

ponents so lu t i o n w ere then r o t a t e d toward simple s t r u c ­
ture by u sin g a V ar i m a x r o t a t i o n a l solution.

This

solution p r o d u c e d the eight orthogi nal factors pre sen t
in the rev i s e d OCDQ.

The factor loadings on the re vised

OCDQ items are p r e s e n t e d in a A ppe ndi x D.

This analysis

is par all el to the sta tis tic al pr oce dur es us ed in the
factor analysis of the original OCDQ (Halpin and Croft,
1962, pp.

154-165).

The I nte rco r r e l a t i o n m atr ix showing

the re lationships b e t w e e n each of the 64 items of the
revised O C D Q is found in Ap pe n d i x E.
The factor loadings for each re vis ed O C D Q item
were com pared with the pa ra l l e l factor lo ading for each
original O CDQ item.

This pr oce d u r e was a c c o m p l i s h e d by

the F-M atc h computer p r o g r a m of Bi anc hin i and Kaiser
(1964) p r o v i d e d by E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Services Office
of M ich i g a n State University.

The results of this

55
comparison determined that the revised OCDQ m eas u r e d the
same factors as the original OCDQ.

(See Appendix P.)
i

Since the original and revised OCDQ factors are s tatis­
tically similar,

the scoring procedure for, original

factors was pro cessed through the Evalu ati on Services
Office of Michigan State University.
Communication Variables
Questionnaire
The Communication Variables Questionnaire
constructed by the author.

(CVQ) was

The CVQ consists of 14 items

which were designed to measure the communications behavior
of the staff and the directors of special education d e p a r t ­
ments in Intermediate school districts.

These items were

designed to m easure seven variables which have been linked
with innovativeness in previous res earch

(Rogers, 1962).

These variables are contained in the communication g e n e r ­
alizations and are defined as follows:
Interpersonal Sources of Information are persons
with whom a staff member may communicate, i.e.

Intermediate

Director of Special Education, other intermediate special
education staff,

local special education personnel, n o n ­

educator lay persons, or State Department of Ed ucation
Consultants.

The interpersonal sources of information

score is computed by totaling the responses on items 72
through 76 on the CVQ for each district and divid ing that
total by the number of respondents from that district.

56
O p i n i o n L e a d e r s h i p is the
ed ucation d i r e c t o r ’s o p i n i o n is

d egr ee to w h i c h the
sought by others

cussing ne w ideas in s pecial education;

special

in d i s ­

the number of times

the di re c t o r is m e n t i o n e d by his staff in a n s w e r i n g this
question:
education?

"With w h o m do yo u discuss n ew ideas in special
List three in the ord er of m ost o f t e n to least

often d i s c u s s i o n p a r t i c i p a n t . "

The d ire cto r's o pin ion

leadership score is the total n umb er of times m e n t i o n e d
divided by the n u m b e r of r esp ond ent s in that district.
P r o f e s s i o n a l Involvement of S t a f f score is the total
number of p r o f e s s i o n a l journals rea d r e g u l a r l y plus total
number of p r o f e s s i o n a l or g a n i z a t i o n m e m b e r s h i p s

currently

held, d iv i d e d by the num b e r of r e s p on den ts f r o m that d i s ­
trict .
C o s m o pol ite nes s of Staf f score is e xpo sur e
side Influences.

This score is

the total n u m b e r

to o u t ­
of days

during 1968-69 school year in a tte nda nce at p r o f e s s i o n a l
meetings di vid ed by the number of st aff members.
Pr o f e s s i o n a l Involvement of the D i r e c t o r score is
the number of pro f e s s i o n a l journals read reg ul a r l y by the
director plus the nu mbe r of p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n
memberships

currently h e l d by the director.

Co smo politeness of D i r e c t o r score is the total
number of days du r i n g 1968-69 school year in attenda nce
at p r o f e ss ion al m e e t i n g s by the director.

57
Professional Meetings are any meetings which have as
their central focus the education of exceptional children
such as conventions of professional organizations,

con­

ferences sponsored by State Department of Education,
meetings of state-wide committees bn special education.
Items 71 through 85 followed the OCDQ (Appendix B)a nd
were used to determine the scores for these seven varia­
bles .
Appendix H presents the per cent of persons in
each employment position who indicated for each source
of information that it was an important source of new
ideas in special education.

Appendix I gives the sources

of new ideas and the per cent of response within each
intermediate special education department.
A summary of all the communication variables scores
for each participating special education staff is found
in Appendix J.
Intermediate School District
Innovativeness Scale
The Intermediate School District Innovativeness
Scale (I S D I S ) was designed by the author to measure the
innovativeness of special education departments in inter­
mediate school districts.

(See Appendix K.)

The design

of this instrument parallels the innovativeness scale
used in a study of liberal arts colleges of the midwest
(Davis,

1 9 6 5 ) reviewed in Chapter II.

58
The I.'JDIo was c ons tru cte d in the f o l l o w i n g manner.
A panel of "experts"
Education,

c o n s i s t i n g of State D e p a r t m e n t of

D i v i s i o n o f Special E d u c a t i o n C o n s u lt ant s and

Mi chigan State U n i v ers ity Professors,
28 innovative programs, practices,

p r o d u c e d a list of

a n d / o r pr oce d u r e s

identified as applicab le to an int erm edi ate
trict.

This

list of programs, practi ces ,

school d i s ­

an d/o r p r o ­

cedures was s ubm i t t e d to the i n t e r m e d i a t e d ire cto rs of
special education.

The di rec t o r s i n d i c a t e d the status

of each of the programs, practices,

and/or pr o c e d u r e s

within their I n t e r med iat e d epa rtm ent of special education.
Each i tem was ma r k e d a c c o r d i n g to the f o l l o w i n g pos s i b l e
responses:
1.

Not aware of this program, p r a c t i c e , or p r o c e d u r e .

2.

Aware of this program,

3-

In trial or p l a n n i n g stage

4.

Fully a d o p t e d or in use.

5-

Ad opt ed p r e v i o u s l y but has b e e n d iscontinued.

6.

This program,

practice, or p r o c e d u r e .
•

Why?

practice, or pr o c e d u r e is not app li-

cable to this in termediate d i s t r i c t .

Why?

The nu mbe r of r e s p on ses for e a c h program , practice,
and/or p roc e d u r e was calculated.

E a c h i t e m w h i c h had b e e n

adopted and was in use by less than 50 per cent of the
in termediate school distric ts in the p o p u l a t i o n was d efined
as an innovation.

If re sponse five or six was marked,

the

author ev alu a t e d the re asons listed why an item was either

59
" d i s c o n t i n u e d ” or "not applica ble "
school district.

Weights of one th rough four were r e a s ­

signed for these items, ba s e d up on
author.
truly

to that p a r t i c u l a r

As an example:

Judgment

of the

if an i t e m was Ju d g e d to be

not applicab le to the district, that it em was

scored as if it were a d o p t e d and in use,

(Weight 4).

Each int erm edi ate school district w a s sc ore d only
on the 19 items d efined as innovations.

The w e i g h t for

each response is as follows:
Response

Weight

1.

Not aware

1

2.

Aware

2

3.

Trial or p l a n n i n g stage

3

4.

Fully ad opt ed

4

5.

Discontinued

6.

Not applicab le

The innova tiv ene ss

or in

use

1-M a s s i g n e d by the
au thor on the basis
or reasons given.

score for each i n t e r m edi ate

department of special e d u c a t i o n is the total of all the
weights from the 19 items def i n e d as innovations.
innovativeness

The

score for each in t e r m e d i a t e d e p a rt men t

of special edu ca t i o n is co ntained in App endix L.

The

extent to w h i c h each of the 19 ISDIS items d e f i n e d as
innovations was a dop t e d is p r e s e n t e d in A p p e n d i x M.

6o
Data Collection Procedures
The data for this study were gathered from two
sources.

Data on population base and financial base were

taken from the records of the Michigan State Department
of Education.
The OCDQ and CVQ were administered to the entire
staff of the intermediate departments of special e d u ­
cation in the population by the author or two investi­
gators conducting simultaneous studies on the same
population (Clark,

1970; Birch, 1970).

The instructions for the instruments were tested
in a pilot study.

This pilot study was conducted in an

intermediate school district which did not meet all
criteria for the population.

This procedure showed that

additional instructions were necessary.

Therefore, a

set of supplemental instructions were written.
Appendix C.)

(See

These supplemental instructions were read

aloud by the investigator after the general printed
instructions had been read silently by each staff member.
The OCDQ and CVQ were administered to the special
education personnel of each of the 29 intermediate school
district between December 12, 1969 and February 6, 1970.
■#
Regular staff meetings were utilized for data gathering.
Due to scheduling of staff meetings and travel
complications, the data in four Intermediate departments
was collected by staff members (two directors and two
diagnosticians) who had been instructed by the investi­
gators in the administration of the instruments.
These
two directors and two diagnosticians were responsible

Approximately
meetings

20 re s p o n d e n t s w h o we re absent from staff

completed the In s t r u m e n t s i n d e p e n d e n t l y and

returned them by first class m a i l to the author.
After each r e s p o n d e n t c o m p l e t e d the qu est i o n n a i r e s ,
he,, p laced his own a nswer sheet in an e n v e l o p e to insure
hi3 anonymity.

E a c h respondent' was asked to m a r k his

qu estionnaires ind e p e n d e n t l y w i t h o u t c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h
other staff members.

The res pon ses

to the r e v i s e d OC DQ

and the CVQ were r e c o r d e d on m a r k sense an swe r sheets-.
These sheets w e r e p r o c e s s e d at the U n i v e r s i t y Test
Scoring S ervice at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y and the
in formation p u n c h e d on I.B.M.
with the CDC

cards suitable for use

3600 computer.

The I n t e r med iat e Sc hoo l D ist ric t Inn ova tiv ene ss
Scale was a d m i n i s t e r e d to each I n t e r m e d i a t e d i r e c t o r o f
special e d u c a t i o n by the a uth or or one of the other two
investigators.

This was done at the time of a p e r s o n a l

visit to the di strict by one of the Investigators.
Treatment

of Dat a

The factors of the revised O CDQ are o r t h o g o n a l d ue
to the nature of the V a r i m a x r o t a t i o n a l solution.
these factors are i n d e p en den t f r o m ea ch other,

Since

they were

tested for th eir r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h i nno v a t i v e n e s s by
simple p airwise cor rel ati ons

(Hayes, pp.

566-577).

The

for a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the instruments and m a i l i n g the
answer sheets to the author.

62
results of these comparisons yield a series of correla'

i

tlon coefficients for the relationship between each OCDQ
factor and innovativeness.
An analysis of the data presented In Chapter IV
shows that the demographic variables of population base
and financial base were independent of each other and
independent of the OCDQ variables.

Therefore,

the re la­

tionships between innovativeness and the demographic
variables were also tested by simple pairwise correlations.
The communications variables used in this study
were not tested to determine if they are orthogonal.
Because we do not know if the seven communications v a r i a ­
bles are independent of each other, a multiple Linear
regression analysis was used.

The multiple regression

solution allows the interpretation of the communications
variables as a group to answer the question:

"Given

these communications variables, how well can Innovative­
ness be predicted?"
In testing the relationship between these seven
variables and Innovativeness, the computer progressively
eliminated the variable which contributed the least to
the explanations of the variance In the dependent varia­
ble, i.e. Innovativeness.

The computer continued to

delete variables until only the variables which were
significant at the p < .05 level remained.

The order

with which the communications variables are deleted from

63
the r e g r e s s i o n for mul a Is d e t e r m i n e d by the b e t a we i g h t s
or the p r e d i c t i v e va lue of these variables.
of subsequent

The order

stepwise r e g r e s s i o n solutions was d e t e r ­

mined by s u c c e s s i v e e l i m i n a t i o n of the least p r e d i c t i v e
variables until the p < .05 level of s i g n i fi can ce is
reached.

The re s u l t s of the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n analysis

determined w h i c h of the c o m m u n i c a t i o n s v a r i a b l e s c o n t r i ­
bute to the p r e d i c t i o n of i n n o v a t i v e n e s s and h o w m u c h
they contribute.
Hypotheses:
The h y p o the ses t est ed in this study are di vid ed
into three groups.

Group I c onsists of h y p o t h e s e s w h i c h

state a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n i n n o v a t i v e n e s s and d e m o ­
graphic variables.
H,:

+'
The fin an c i a l base of i n t e r m e d i a t e school d i s ­
tricts is not c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the i n n o v a t i v e ­
ness of i nt e r m e d i a t e de p a r t m e n t s of special
e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.

The p o p u l a t i o n base of int e r m e d i a t e school d i s ­
tricts is not c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the in nov a t i v e n e s s
of I nt e r m e d i a t e d e p a r tme nts of spe cia l e d u c a t i o n
in Michigan.
The hypothe ses r e l a t i n g to OCD Q v a r i a b l e s were
derived f r o m the g e n e r a l h y p o t h e s i s that h i g h - i n n o v a t i v e
Intermediate d e p a r tme nts of special e d u c a t i o n wil l have
*

This analysis of data was done w i t h the Least
Squares D e l e t i o n pr og r a m s D e s c r i p t i o n n umbers seven and
eight, M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y Com put er L abo rat ory
Library on the C o n t r o l D a t a C o r p o r a t i o n 3600 Computer.

6i\
a profile similar to that on an "open" climate profile.
(Halpin,

1 9 6 6 , p.

136.)

H.~:

D ise ngagement is negativ ely co rre lat ed with
innovativeness in intermediate d epartments of
special ed uca tion in Michigan.

IK:

Hindrance is negatively cor rel ate d w i t h i n n o v a ­
tiveness in intermediate d epartments of special
education in Michigan.

He:
0

Esprit is positively correlated w i t h Innovativeness in intermediate departments of special
education in Michigan.

Hg:

Intimacy is negatively co rre lat ed wit h i n n o v a ­
tiveness In intermediate departments of special
educati on in Michigan.

H„:
'

Aloofness is negatively correlated w i t h innovativeness in in termediate de par tme nts of special
education In Michigan.

Hg:

Pr odu cti on emphasis is negatively correl ate d
with innovativeness in In termediate departments
of special e duc ati on in Michigan.

IK:
y

Thrust is po sit ive ly correlated w i t h In novativeness in intermediate departm ent s of special
educati on In Michigan.

H10:

Con sid era tio n is positively correlated w ith
innovativeness in intermediate departments of
special education in Michigan.

The hypotheses rel ating to communications variables
were derived from g ene ralizations based on the results of
previous research in the d iff usion of Innovations.
(Rogers, 1962, pp.

311-315.)

Hll:

Use of mass m e d i a sources of awareness Is p o s i ­
tively related to innovativeness In intermediate
departments of special education in Michigan.

H12:

Use of interpersonal sources of awareness of
innovations negatively r elated to Innovativeness
In Intermediate departments of special edu cation
in Michigan.

II,-:
J

Opi n i o n leadership of d i r e c t o r s of special
e d u c a t i o n is p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to, i n n o v a t i v e ­
ness in Int e r m e d i a t e d e p a r t m e n t s of special
e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.

H li(: P r o f e s s i o n a l i nv o l v e m e n t of sta ff m e m b e r s is
p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to i n n o v a t i v e n e s s in i n t e r ­
me di a t e d e p a r t men ts of special e d u c a t i o n in
Michigan.
H,,-:
5

Pr of e s s i o n a l inv o l v e m e n t of spe c i a l e d u c a t i o n
d ire cto rs is p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to i n n o v a t i v e ­
ness in i n t e r m e d i a t e d e p a r t m e n t s of special
e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.

H ,r : Cos mop o l i t e n e s s of s taff is p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d
to i nno v a t i v e n e s s in i n t e r m e d i a t e d e p a r t m e n t s
of special e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.
H , 7 : C o s m o p o l i t e n e s s of sp eci al e d u c a t i o n d ire c t o r
‘
is p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to i n n o v a t i v e n e s s in
in t e r m e d i a t e d e p a r t m e n t s of spe c i a l e d u c a t i o n
in Michigan.
Summary
Pr esented in this c h a p t e r is the b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n
concerning the c o m p o s i t i o n of the M i c h i g a n I nt e r m e d i a t e
School Districts and the s pecial education, p e r s o n n e l that
constitute the p o p u l a t i o n for this study.

E a c h of the

characteristics is p r e s e n t e d for the en t i r e p o p u l a t i o n
and for each of the p o s i t i o n c a t e g o r y subgroups.
The dev elopment,
cedures for the OCDQ,

adm ini s t r a t i o n ,

and s cor ing p r o ­

CVQ and ISDIS are reviewed.

The

pilot study u sed to de vel op i n s t r u c t i o n s a n d check a d m i n ­
is tration p roc ed u r e s
of the demogr aph ic,

is reviewed.

O p e r a t i o n a l d e f i nit ion s

o r g a n i z a t i o n climate,

variables are presented.

and c o m m u n i c a t i o n

In addition, o t h e r terms

to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of this study are defined.

crucial

66
The hypotheses for this study are stated In test­
able form.

Two hypotheses deal wit h the r elationship

between innovativeness and d emographic variables.

Eight

hypotheses postulate the relat ion shi p bet wee n i nno vat ive ­
ness and the organizational climate variables.

Seven

hypotheses state the relationships be t w e e n innovativeness
and communications variables.
In the final section of Chapter III, the* statistical
procedures used for analysis of the data are presented.

CHA P T E R IV
A N A L Y S I S OP DATA

Introduction
The d ata use d in this study were an al y z e d on the CDC
36OO Computer,
Laboratory.

in the M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y C omputer

The p rog ram s u s e d for d a t a analys is were

supplied by the c omp ut er laboratory an d are co nta ine d in
de scriptions five,

seven, a n d eight in the Co mp u t e r

Center Library.
The units of analysis for e a c h v a r i a b l e are the 29
Intermediate school d i s t r ict s in the populat ion .

Based

upon n = 29 sta tis tic al tables c o r r e l a t i o n values need
to r e a c h the s i g n i f ica nce level of p < .05 for o n e - t a i l e d
tests is
.3 8 1 .

(r) =

.323 and for t w o - t a i l e d tests is

(r) ■

P e a r s o n Product M oment co rre lat ion s are u sed to

test the first
The d a t a

ten hypotheses.
us ed in tes tin g the h y p o t h e s e s are found

the fol low ing locations.

In nov ati ven ess

in

scores are located

In Ap pendix L.

P o p u l a t i o n base and F i n a n c i a l base figures

are in Ta ble 1

in Ch apt er III. O C D Q subtest scores are

67

68
located In Appendix G.

Communi cat ion Variable scores are

In Appendix J.
Results
Hypothesis 1
The financial base of Intermediate school districts
is not correlated w ith the Inn ovativeness of in t e r ­
mediate departments of special e d u c ati on in Michigan.
The result of the correlation of innovativeness
scores and financial base is shown in Table 3.

The value

of (r) did not reach the level r equ ire d for significance
for a two-tailed, n on- directlonal hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1 is supported.

Therefore,

Innovativeness and financial

base are not significantly correlated.
TABLE 3*— Correlation bet wee n Innovativeness and d e m o ­
graphic variables.
Demographic Variables
Fi nancial Base
(r)
Innovativeness

Po pul ati on Base
(r)

-.088

Significant at p < .05»i*e.

.436*
(r) > .381

Hypothesis 2
The population base of in termediate school districts
is not correlated w i t h the innovativeness of int er­
mediate departments of special ed uca t i o n in Michigan.
Table 3 shows that the value of the correlation
coefficient between innovativeness and p o p u la tio n base
exceeded the level needed for significance.

Therefore,

69
Hypothesis 2 is rejected.

T her e is a po si t i v e

significant

correla tio n b e t w e e n p o p u l a t i o n base and innovativeness.
Hypothesis

3

Di sen gag eme nt is ne g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n n o v a ­
tiveness in i nte rme dia te d e p a r t m e n t s o f special
e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.
Table

4 shows that value of

(r) b e t w e e n i n n o v a ­

tiveness and Dis en g a g e m e n t d i d not r e a c h the level of
significance for a on e-tailed, d i r e c t i o n a l hypothesis.
Therefore,

Hy p o t h e s i s

3 is not supported.

The r e l a t i o n ­

ship b e t w e e n i n n o v a t i v e n e s s and D i s e n g a g e m e n t is not
significant.
Hypothesis 4
H i n d r a n c e is n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n n o v a t i v e ­
ness in i n t e r med iat e d e p a r t m e n t s o f s pe c i a l e d u c a t i o n
in Michigan.
Table

4 shows that the value of

(r) d i d not r eac h

the level of s i g n i fic an ce for a o ne-tailed,
hypothesis.

T herefore, H y p o t h e s i s

directional

4 is rejected.

The

relation shi p b e t w e e n i n n o v a t i v e n e s s and H i n d r a n c e is not
significant.
TABLE 4.— Cor r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n i n n o v a t i v e n e s s and staff
OCDQ v a r i a b l e s .
O C DQ St aff V a r i a b l e s
D i sen g a g e m e n t
(r)
Innovativeness

.129

Hindrance
(r)
-.094

Esprit
(r)
.386 *

n
S i g n i fic ant at p < .05 i.e.

(r) >

.323*

Intimac y
(r)
.165

70
Hypothesis 5
Es pri t is p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n n o v a t i v e n e s s
in in te r m e d i a t e d e p a r t m e n t s of special e d u c a t i o n in
Michigan.
Table 4 shows the value of

(r) exc eed s the level of

significance for a one-tailed,, d i r e c t i o n a l hypothesis.
Therefore,

H y p o t h e s i s 5 is supported.

T h e r e is a s i g n i f ­

icant r el a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n i n n o v a t i v e n e s s and Esprit.
Hypothesis

6

Intimac y is not c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n n o v a t i v e n e s s in
i n t e r m e d i a t e d e p a r t m e n t s of spe cia l e d u c a t i o n in
Michigan.
Table 4 shows that the val ue of
the level of sig nificance.
not supported.

The

Therefor e,

(r) d i d not reach
H y p o t h e s i s 6 is

relationship between innovativeness

and Intimacy is not significant.
Hypothesis 7
Al oof nes s is n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n n o v a t i v e ­
ness in I nt e r m e d i a t e de p a r t m e n t s of sp ecial e d u c a t i o n
In Michigan.
T a ble

5 shows

the va lue of (r) did not r e a c h the

level r e q u i r e d for s i g n i f i c a n c e .Therefor e,
7 is not supported.

Hypothesis

A loo fness and i n n o v a t i v e n e s s are

not s ign i f i c a n t l y related.
Hypothesis 8
P r o d u c t i o n E m p h a s i s is n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with
i n n o v a t i v e n e s s in in t e r m e d i a t e d e p a r t m e n t s o f special
e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.
Table

5 shows

8 is not supported.

that the v alu e of

(r) for Hypothesis

The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n P r o d u c t i o n

Emphasis a n d I n n o v a t i v e n e s s is not significant.

71
TADM'I 5.— Co rr e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n I n n o v a t i v e n e s s and di rec tor
OCDQ v a r i a b l e s .
OCDQ Director Variables
Al oof nes s

Innovativeness

Th r u s t

Consideration

(r)

Production
Emp h a s i s
(r)

(r)

(r)

.033

.138

.363*

.125

it

S i g n i fic ant at p < . 0 5 , i.e.

(r) >

.323.

Hypothesis 9
Thrust is p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n n o v a t i v e n e s s
in i n t e r m edi ate d e p a r t m e n t s of s pecial e d u c a t i o n in
Michigan.
Ta ble 5 shows that the value of (r) for H y p o t h e s i s
9 exceeds the

level r e q u i r e d for s i g n i f i c a n c e for a on e­

tailed, d i r e c t i o n a l test.
supported.

T h e r e f o r e * H y p o t h e s i s 9 is

I n n o v a t i v e n e s s and Thrust are s i g n i f i c a n t l y

related.
Hypothesis 10
C o n s i d e r a t i o n is p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n n o v a ­
tiveness in i n t e r m e d i a t e d e p a r t m e n t s of s p e c i a l
e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.
Table 5 shows that for the c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n
innovativeness and C o n s i d e r a t i o n scores, the v a l u e of
(r) for Hyp oth esi s

10 did not r e a c h the level r e q u i r e d

for significance.

T h e r ef ore , H y p o t h e s i s

ported.

10 is not s up­

The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n i n n o v a t i v e n e s s and

Co nsi der ati on is not significant.

72
Linear R e g r e s s i o n Ana lysis
Hy pot hes es

11 th r o u g h 17 are t e s t e d t h r o u g h a

linear r e g r e s s i o n formula.

T abl e 6 contains

the B e t a

Weights and sig n i f i c a n c e level of all seven c o m m u n i c a t i o n s
variables b efore any d e l e t i o n s w e r e made.

The overall

significance of the co mpl ete l ine ar r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n
is p «

.206 and no single v a r i a b l e in the o r i g i n a l r e g r e s ­

sion e q u a t i o n h ad a s i g n i f i c a n c e of p < .05.
The o r d e r in w h i c h the C o m m u n i c a t i o n s V a r i a b l e s
were e l i m i n a t e d from the l inea r r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n and
the r e s u l t i n g effect u pon the amo u n t of v a r i a n c e in i n n o ­
vativeness a c c o u n t e d for is g i v e n in Ta ble 7.
Hypothesis

11

Use of mass m e d i a sources of a war eness is p o s i t i v e l y
r e l a t e d to i n n o v a t i v e n e s s in i n t e r m e d i a t e de p a r t m e n t s
of special e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.
Mass m e d i a sources of i n f o r m a t i o n was the sec ond
variable d e l e t e d fr om the l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n e qua tio n
because it did not c o n t r i b u t e to the v a r i a n c e of i n n o v a ­
tiveness at the p < .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e level.
Hypothesis

11 is not supported.

Therefo re,

Use of mas s m e d i a sources

are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to i n n o v a t i v e n e s s in i n t e r ­
mediate sp ecial e d u c a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t s
Hypothesis

in Michigan.

12

Use of i n t e r p e r s o n a l s ources of a war e n e s s of i n n o v a ­
tions is n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to i n n o v a t i v e n e s s in
i n t e r med iat e d e p a r t m e n t s of special e d u c a t i o n in
Michigan.

73

TABLE 6.— Results of multiple linear regression analysis
of communications variables used
to predict I n n o v a t i v e n e s s .
Communication
Variable

Hypothesis
No.

Beta
Weight

Significance
Level

Mass Media
Sources

11

-.035

.856

Interpersonal
Sources

12

.119

.557

Opinion
Leadership

13

-.361

.070

Staff Professional
Involvement

14

.381

.073

Director Professional
Involvement

15

.166

.437

Staff Cosmopoliteness

16

-.033

.868

Director Cosmopoliteness

17

-.139

.491

All Communication
Variables

11-17

.0005

Total amount of variance accounted for by original
2
regression equation
r
<■ .3404.

74

TABLE 7 * T - 0 r d e r of d e l e t i o n of n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t c o m m u n i c a t i o n
va riables from the linear r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n w i t h the
r e s u l t i n g a l t e r n a t i o n in
r 2 and s i g n i f ica nce of
the linear r e g r e s s i o n equation.
Order of
Deletion

Communication
Variable

r

B efo re
Deletion

S i g n i f i c a n c e Lev el
before Deletion

1

St aff C o s m o ­
p o l i te nes s

.3408

.206

2

Mass M e d i a
Sources

.3395

.129

3

Interpersonal
So urces

.3380

.073

4

D i rec to r
Cosmopoliteness

.3270

.043

5

Director Profes­
sional I n v o l v e m e n t

.3192

020

6

Opinion
Leadership

.3068

.009

S t a f f P ro f e s s i o n a l
I n vol ve men t

.1992

.015

Not
Deleted

Use of interpersonal sources of information was the
third communication variable to be deleted from the linear
regression equ ati on because it di d not contribute s ign if­
icantly to the variance of innovativeness.
Therefore* Hypothesis 12 is not supported.

Use of

interpersonal sources of in formation is not re l a t e d sig­
nificantly to innovativeness in intermediate special
education departments in Michigan.
Hypothesis 13
Opinion leadership of directors of special education
is p ositively correlated w i t h innovativeness in
intermediate departments of special e duc ati on in
Michigan.
Table 7 shows that opinion leadership was the last
non-significant variable to be de l e t e d from the linear
regression equation.

The de let i o n of opinion leadership

from the linear re gre ssi on e quation caused r
from .3068 to .1992.

2 to drop

This drop approached significance

but did not reach significance at the p < .05 level.
Even though opi nio n leadership d i d account for slightly
over 1056 of the variance in innovativeness,
reach the criterion level.
not supported.

it did not

Therefore, Hypothesis 13 is

O pinion leadership is not related to

innovativeness.
Hypothesis 1*1
Professional involvement of staff members is positively
correlated w i t h innovativeness i n intermediate d e p a r t ­
ments of special education in Michigan.

76
Pro f e s s i o n a l i nvolvement of the staff was the .
strongest and only c o m m u n i c a t i o n v ari abl e to s urvive the
deletion process.

Table 6 shows that the b e t a we i g h t

for staff p r o f e s s i o n a l involve men t was +

.381.

This

variable accounts for 19.9 per cent of the v a r i a n c e of
innovativeness w h i c h is s igni fic ant at the p * .015 level.
(See Table 7).

Therefore, b e c a u s e the b e t a wei g h t is

positive and the level of s i g n i f ica nce m e e t s the c r i t e r i a
of p < .05* H y p o t h e s i s 14 is supported.

The p r o f e s s i o n a l

involvement of the staff is p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to i n n o v a ­
tiveness in in ter med iat e sp eci al e d u c a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t s in
Michigan.
Hypothesis

15

Profess ion al i n v o l vem ent of special e d u c a t i o n d i r e c ­
tors is p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n n o v a t i v e n e s s in
In ter med iat e d e p a r tme nts of special e d u c a t i o n in
Michigan.
The f ift h c o m m u n i c a t i o n var ia b l e to be d e l e t e d from
the linear r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n was t h e . p r o f e s s i o n a l
involvement of the special e d u c a t i o n director.

This

variable did not account for a s i g n i fic ant amount of the
variance of innovativeness.
Hypothesis

(See Tab le 7)*

15 is not supported.

T her efo re,

The sp ec i a l e d u c a t i o n

director's p r o f e s s i o n a l in vol vem ent is not s i g n i f i c a n t l y
related to i n n o v ati ven ess in i n t e rm edi ate s pecial e d u c a ­
tion depart men ts in Michigan.

77
Hypothesis

16

C o s m o p o l i t e n e s s of staff is p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d
w i t h i n n o v a t i v e n e s s in i n t e r m e d i a t e de p a r t m e n t s of
special e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.
Ta ble 7 relates that sta ff c o s m o p o l i t e n e s s was the
communic ati on v a r i a b l e w h i c h c o n t r i b u t e d the least to
the var ian ce of i n n o v a t i v e n e s s a n d was the first to be
deleted from the
nificance

linear r e g r e s s i o n equation.

The s i g ­

level for sta ff c o s m o p o l i t e n e s s d i d not m e e t

the criteria.

Therefore,

Hypothesis

16 1 b not supported.

Staff c o s m o p o l i t e n e s s is not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to
innovativeness in I n t e r m e d i a t e S pe c i a l E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t ­
ments in Michigan.
Hypothesis

17

C o s m o p o l i t e n e s s of sp ecial e d u c a t i o n directors is
p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to i n n o v a t i v e n e s s in I n t e r m edi ate
Sp e c i a l E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t s in Michigan.
Ta ble 7 shows that d i r e c t o r co s m o p o l i t e n e s s was
the fourth c o m m u n i c a t i o n v a r i a b l e to be d e l e t e d from the
linear r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n b e c a u s e it was not s i g n i f ­
icantly r e l a t e d to i n n o v a t i v e n e s s at the p <
Therefore, H y p o t h e s i s

17 is not supported.

.05 level.
Cosmopolite­

ness of the special e d u c a t i o n d i r e c t o r is not rel ate d
significantly

to i n n o v a t i v e n e s s

in i n t e rm edi ate special

ed ucation d e p a r t m e n t s in Michigan.
Su mmary
The h y p o t h e s e s

in this study p o s t u l a t e d r e l a t i o n ­

ships b e t w e e n i n n o v a t i v e n e s s

and two de mographic, eight

78

TA BLE 8.— Sum mar y of hypotheses.
H y p o t h e s e s t ested w i t h simple
co rrelations
Hypothesis
Number

Independent Variable
Name

Ty pe of
Relationship
Postulated
(r)

Res ult *

Fi nan c i a l Base

Null

nfto
” *ut5°

Not
Si g n i f i c a n t

P o p u l a t i o n Base

Nu ll

+.436

Significant

D i s e ng age men t

Ne g a t i v e + .129

significant

Hi ndr anc e

N e g a t i v e -.09H

Not
sl8nlfioant

Esprit

Po sit ive +.386

Significant

Intimacy

Po sit i v e +.165

Not
Significant

7

Al oofness

Neg a t i v e

-.033

Not
Si g n i f i c a n t

8

P r o d u c t i o n Em pha s i s

N e g a t i v e +.138

Not
si g n i f i c a n t

9

Th rus t

P o s i t i v e +.363

S i g n i fic ant

Consideration

Pos i t i v e +.125

Not
Significant

10

79

TA BLE 8. — Continued.
H y p o t h e s e s t est ed by linear
regression equation
Hypothesis
Nu mbe r

Ty pe of
Relationship
Postulated
(Beta Weights)

Independent Variable
Name

Result*

11

Mass M e d i a Sources

Po sit i v e -.035

Not
Sig nif ica nt

12

Interpersonal
Sources

Ne g a t i v e +. 1X9

Not
s l s n l fl oan t

13

Opinion
Leadership

Pos i t i v e -.361

Not
S i g n i fica nt

V\

Staff P r o f e s s i o n a l
In v o l v e m e n t

Po si t i v e

.381

S i g n i f ica nt

15

Director Profes­
sional I n v o l veme nt

Pos i t i v e

.166

Not
Sig ni fica nt

16

Staff
Cosmopoliteness

Pos iti ve -.033

Not
Sig ni fica nt

17

Director
Co s m o p o l i t e n e s s

Po s i t i v e -.139

Not
Sig ni fica nt

»

Si g n i f i c a n c e

level,

p <

.05

80
organizational climate, and seven communications variables
The results of the analysis of these relationships are
summarized in Table 8.
Of the 17 hypotheses tested, four were significant
at the p < .05 level.

Of the two null hypotheses dealing

with demographic variables, one was rejected.

Hypothesis

2 postulated no relationship be t w e e n the school-age p o p u ­

lation of an intermediate school district and the in n o v a ­
tiveness of the intermediate special ed uca tio n departments
As a result of the reject ion of this hypothesis,

there

appears to be a relationship bet w e e n the number of schoolage persons in an intermediate district and the n umber of
innovative programs, practices and procedures adopted by
the intermediate special e duc ati on departments.

The

direction of this relationship is that the larger the
population base,

the more innovative the intermediate

special education department.
Two of the eight directional hypotheses relat ing
organizational climate variables to innovativeness were
supported.

Hypothesis 5 which postulates a positive

relationship between the Esprit or morale of intermediate
special ed ucation staffs and innovativeness of i n t e r ­
mediate special education departments was supported.
Hypothesis 9 was also supported.

It postu lat es a positive

relationship between the OCDQ variable of Thrust of the
special education director and innovativeness of the

in termediate special e d u c a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t i n Michigan.
Therefore,

it a ppears that only two o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate
/

variables, Es pri t and Thrust, ?tre r e l a t e d to the a d o p t i o n
of i nno va t i v e s pec ial e d u c a t i o n p rog ram s, p r a c t i c e s and
procedures in i n t e r m e d i a t e s pecial e d u c a t i o n departments
in Michigan.

The d i r e c t i o n of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s is that

the h i g h e r the Es p r i t and T hru st s ubtest scores on the
OCDQ,

the m o r e innovat ive , i n t e r m e d i a t e special e d u c a t i o n

departments wil l be.
One of the s e v e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n v a r i a b l e h y p o the ses
was s i g n i fic ant at the p <

.05 level.

H y p o t h e s i s 14

postulates a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the average
nqmber of p r o f e s s i o n a l journals r e a d plus p r o f e s s i o n a l
or ga n i z a t i o n m e m b e r s h i p s hel d by the staff, and the n u m b e r
of in nov ati ve sp eci al e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s p r a c t i c e s and
procedures ado p t e d by i nt e r m e d i a t e s pec ial e d u c a t i o n d e p a r t ­
ments in Michigan.
fore,

Hypothesis

14 was supported.

There­

the p r o f e s s i o n a l I n v o l vem ent of spe cial e d u c a t i o n

staff m e m b e r s ap pears to be r e l a t e d to i n n o v a t i v e n e s s in
intermediate de p a r t m e n t s of sp eci al e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.
The d i r e c t i o n of this r e l a t i o n s h i p is that the gre ater
the p r o f e s s i o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t of the special e d u c a t i o n
staff, the m ore i n n o v a t i v e the in te r m e d i a t e sp ecial e d u c a ­
tion department.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary
The rate of growth of special education programs
for handicapped children has followed the slow adoption
process pattern of innovations in general education.
In Michigan 44 per cent of the handicapped children
actually received service in special education programs
in 1945.

Yet in 1970, the per cent of handicapped chil­

dren who received special education services had grown
to only 65 per cent, an increase of 21 per cent in 25
years.
The concern of this study was to investigate the
relationship between organizational climate variables,
communication variables and the adoption of innovative
special education programs, practices, and procedures.
Knowledge of these relationships may help educators to
hasten the growth of educational programs for ha ndi ­
capped children.
The population used in this study consisted of the
29 intermediate school districts in Michigan which employed
a certified full-time director of special education and
levied a tax ear-marked for special education programs.
82

83
The res pon ses of 520 I n t e r m e d i a t e special e d u c a t i o n staff
members were used in the an aly sis o f data.
Two of the i n s t r u ment s used in this study were
constructed by the author.
trict In nov ati ven ess Scale
tiveness

The Int e r m e d i a t e Sc h o o l D i s ­
(ISDIS), p r o v i d e d a n i n n o v a ­

score based u p o n the a d o p t i o n w i t h i n e a c h i n t e r ­

mediate school dis t r i c t of 19 p rog rams, practic es,

and

procedures w hic h had be en fully a d o p t e d by less t h a n 50
per cent of the d i s t r i c t s

in the population.

The C o m m u n i c a t i o n V a r i a b l e s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

(CVQ)

pr ovided scores for the f o l l o w i n g s eve n co mmu nic ati ons
variables:
1.

Use of Mass M e d i a sources o f information.

2.

Use of I n t e r p e r s o n a l sources of information.

3.

O p i n i o n l e a d e r s h i p of director.

4.

P r o f e s s i o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t of staff.

5.

P r o f e s s i o n a l i n v o l ve ment o f director.

6.

Staff cosmo pol ite nes s.

7.

D i r e c t o r cos mop oliteness.
In this study the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate D e s c r i p t i o n

Questio nna ire was r e v i s e d to m a k e the items ap p r o p r i a t e
for in te r m e d i a t e school d i s t r i c t use.

The rev i s e d OC DQ

was factor ana l y z e d and the r e v i s e d factors wer e f oun d to
measure the same eight d i m e n s i o n s as the o r i g i n a l OCDQ.
These di m e n s i o n s are ca lle d D i s e n ga gem ent , Hindrance,
Esprit,

Intimacy,

and Consideration.

Aloofness., Production, E mph asi s, Thrust,

84
In a d d i t i o n to the three i n s t rum ent s above,

the

school-age p o p u l a t i o n and the amount of m o n e y p r o d u c e d
by the earmarked special e d u c a t i o n tax per child w e r e
obtained for each district fro m M i c h i g a n D e p a r tme nt of
Education records.

T hese d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s w e r e

labeled p o p u l a t i o n base, and financi al base respect ive ly.
The r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n i n n o v a t i v e n e s s and the
organizational

climate and d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s we re

analyzed thr oug h the use of P e a r s o n Pro d u c t Mo ment
relations .

cor­

Esprit and T hrust fr om the O C D Q and the

demographic variable of p o p u l a t i o n base wer e found to
be signifi can tly c o r r e l a t e d at the p < .05 level.
The r ela t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n i n n o v a t i v e n e s s and the
communication v ari ables were m e a s u r e d by m u l t i p l e
regression analysis.

l ine ar

S taf f p r o f e s s i o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t

accounted for 19.9 per cent of the var i a n c e

in i n n o v a ­

tiveness and was the only c o m m u n i c a t i o n va ria b l e to have
a significant rel a t i o n s h i p w i t h I n n o v a t i v e n e s s at the
P < .05 level.
Findings
Of the 17 r e l a t ion shi ps tested, only four v a r i a b l e s
were signif ica ntl y r e l a t e d to innovati ven ess .

This study

found the f o l l o w i n g four r e l a t i o n s h i p s :
1.

I nno vat ive nes s of i nte r m e d i a t e special e d u c a t i o n
de p a r t men ts was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to the s choolage p o p u l a t i o n of the I n t e r m e d i a t e school d i s t r i c t

85
Larger school-age population was associated with
higher Innovativeness.
2.

Innovativeness of intermediate special education
departments was positively related to the Esprit
score on the revised OCDQ.

Higher morale or

Esprit was associated with higher innovativeness.
3.

Innovativeness in intermediate special education
departments was positively related to the Thrust
score on the revised OCDQ.

Higher Thrust was

associated with higher innovativeness.
.

Innovativeness in. intermediate special education
departments was positively related to the p r o ­
fessional involvement of the special education
staff.

Higher professional involvement was

associated with higher innovativeness.
Conclusions
The conclusions that result from this study are
based upon the questions raised in Chapter I.
Conclusion 1
Communication variables are related to the adoption
of innovative special education programs, practices,

and

procedures in intermediate special education departments
in Michigan.
Although only staff professional involvement of the
communication variables contributed significantly t o ,the

86
variance of i nno v a t i v e n e s s by itself, o p i n i o n l e a d e r ­
ship, dir ect or p r o f e s s i o n a l in volvement,

and d i r e c t o r

cosmopoliteness were also inc l u d e d i n a linear r e g r e s ­
sion eq uat i o n w h i c h h a d a signi fic anc e of

.0^3 and

accounted for 32.7 pe r cent of the va ria nce of i n n o v a ­
tiveness.
Conclusion 2
Two o r g a n i z a t i o n climate variables, Esp rit and
Thrust,

are r ela ted to the adop t i o n of inn ova tio ns in

special e d u c a t i o n programs, practices,

and p roc ed u r e s

in interme dia te special e d u c a t i o n de p a r t m e n t s in Michigan.
Furthermore, higher Esprit, or mor ale o f the special
education staff, and h i g h e r d i r e c t o r ’s Thrust,

or the

mo tiv ati on of his staff t hrou gh his pe rs o n a l example,
are a sso ci a t e d w ith more innovative int erm edi ate special
education departments.
Conclusion 3
The ge ner al i z a t i o n s b a s e d on p rev iou s r e s e a r c h in
the dif fu s i o n of inn ova tio ns do not apply to the ad op t i o n
of innovative special e d u c a t i o n programs, p rac tic es, and
procedures in In t e r m e d i a t e special e d u c a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t s
in Michigan.
a.

The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n that early ado pti ors have
more favorable fi nancial p o s i t i o n does not
generalize.

The amount of in ter med iat e special

87
education tax funds per child was not correlated
with the ad option of innovative special education
programs, practices, and procedures in in ter ­
me diate special edu cat ion departments in Michigan.
(See discussion section for further comment.)
b.

The general iza tio n that earlier adoptors are more
cosmopolite than later adoptors is not supported.
The number of days spent outside of the in ter ­
me diate district to attend professional meetings
by special education staffs and directors, i.e.
cosmopoliteness was not significantly related to
the ado ption of Innovations special education
programs, practices, and procedures.

c.

The communication general iza tio n that earlier
adoptors have more opinion leadership than later
adoptors is not supported.

Opinion leadership

was not significantly correlated with i nno vat ive ­
ness in this study.

Therefore, it appears that

these three generalizations are not supported by
thi3 s t u d y .
Conclusion *4
Organizational Climate De scr ipt ion Questionnaire
does generalize to special education departments in
intermediate school districts in Michigan.

88
The factor analysis and fa cto r m a t c h i n g p r o c e d u r e s
used in this study have shown that the factors w h i c h
emerged from the i nte rme dia te school district r e v i s i o n
of the OCD Q are s tat ist ica lly rel a t e d to the ori ginal
OCDQ dev eloped w i t h an ele men tar y school p o p u l a t i o n by
Halpin and Croft

(1962).
Discussion

Financial Base
Previous r e s e a r c h has sug ges ted that f i n a nci al
resources have a direct influence u p o n Innovati ve b e h a v i o r
of school systems.

Yet,

this study did not show that the

amount of Public Act 18 special e d u c a t i o n tax funds per
pupil was r e l a t e d to the ad opt ion of inn ova tiv e special
education programs, practices, and procedures.

The lack

of a relation shi p is p r o b a b l y d ue to the fact that some
of the items d efi ned as innovations re qu i r e d little or no
extra e xpenditures of f u n d s .
cedural items,

T h e s e innovati ons were p r o ­

such as cooperative in ser vic e tr ain ing

programs wi th other interm edia te school districts,

co m­

prehensive and i n t e g r a t e d p l a n n i n g to meet the special
education needs for the entire interme dia te dis tri ct area,
and organized parent groups p a r t i c i p a t i n g in p r o g r a m
planning.

Oth er innovat ion s r e q u i r e d the e x p e n dit ure s

of considerable amounts of funds su ch as h i r i n g c o n s u l t ­
ants for learning disabilities,

or o p e r a t i o n of home

'89
training programs for severely handi cap ped pre-scho ol
children.

This wide range of cost of the programs,

practices, and procedures used to determine the innova­
tiveness score apparently gave each intermediate school
district an equal chance to show that they were inn o v a ­
tive.

If nothing else, the finding of no re lationship

between financial status and innovativeness should
encourage those special educators who feel that their
districts are less than affluent to attempt to Increase
their services for handicapped children.
Population Base
Although financial base was not related to i nno va­
tiveness, population base was related.

The school-age

population of the intermediate districts used in this
study r anged from 8,206 to 264,760 with a m e a n p o p u l a ­
tion of 39,558.

The Mi chi gan Depart men t of Education,

Division of Special Edu cat ion has recently recom men ded
that the mi n i m u m school-age population for an intermediate
school district should be 40,000.

This school-age p o p u ­

lation would give the district enough children in the low
incidence areas to be able to operate adequate programs.
For example, at the incidence rate of one child per
thousand (.001) there would be 40 deaf children of schoolage.

The State Department of E duc ati on in Mic h i g a n feels

that this would allow for meaningful programs for all age
levels within the intermediate district.

9°
*

Gome of the 3peoial e d u c a t i o n pr ograms, pr act ice s,
and p roc edu res used to d ete rmi ne t h e ' i n n o v a t i v e n e s s score
were more likely to be found in la rge r dis tricts be c a u s e
they dealt w i t h low incidence h a n d i c a p p e d areas such as
severely h a n d i cap ped p r e - s c h o o l children.

Yet, m a n y of

the innovations used in this study d i d not re quire a
Large p o p u l a t i o n base.

In fact,

41 p e r cent o f the i n t e r ­

mediate districts studied i n d i c a t e d that they p r o g r a m m e d
for low incidence dis abi lit y area chi ldr en in co ope rat ive
programs w i t h other int erme dia te districts.
The r e l a t io nsh ip shown b e t w e e n i n n o v a t i v e n e s s and
po pul ati on base supports the M i c h i g a n Department of
Education,

Div i s i o n of Special Education,

co nte nti on

that a m i n i m u m school-age p o p u l a t i o n w o u l d facilita te
the d e v e l opm en t of adequate and innovat ive s pecial e d u ­
cation programs, pra cti ces and procedures.
Opinion Leadership
The linear r e g r e s s i o n ana lysis i n v o l v i n g c o m m u n i ­
cation va ria b l e s sh owe d that the c o m b i nat ion of o pinion
leadership of the d i r e c t o r and the p r o f e s s i o n a l i n v o l v e ­
ment of the staff a cco u n t e d for 30.68 p e r cent of the
variance of innovativeness.

This lin ear r e g r e s s i o n

equation was significant at the

.009 level.

leadership was deleted from the equation,

W h e n opi n i o n

st aff p r o f e s ­

sional involv eme nt a cco u n t e d for 19 •9 pez* cent of the

91
variance of Innovativeness and was significant at the
.015 l e v e l .

. '

Since there is a loss of predic tiv e power

r

P

and significance when o pinion leadership is dropped
from the linear regression equation, there ’is a tempta­
tion to suggest that both op ini on leadership and staff
professional involvement be used to predict i n n o v ati ve­
ness.

However, since the relati ons hip between opinion

leadership and innovativeness did not r eac h the

.05

level of significance and the r elationship shown was
in a direction opposite of that indicated by previous
research, it is recommended that opinion leadership
should not be used as a factor in pr edi cti ng i n n o v a ­
tiveness in intermediate special education departments
in Michigan at this time.
Sources of Information
The two-step flow of informa tio n communication
model discussed in Chapter II postulates that i n f o r ­
mation enters a social system through one of its members
who acts as an intermediary or gatekeeper.

Appendix H

shows that the pattern of use of i nfo rma tio n sources Is
similar for all staff positions.
notable exception to this pattern.

However,

there is one

Twenty-five per cent

of all respondents indicated that they felt State D e p a r t ­
ment of Education consultants were important sources of
information about new Ideas in special education.

Yet,

92
69 p e r •cent of the i n t e r m e d i a t e sp ecial e duc ati on d i r e c ­
tors p i c k e d state c o n s u lta nts as im por t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n
sources.

D ire cto rs also i n d i c a t e d a g r e a t e r use of

State Dep art m e n t of E d u c a t i o n p u b l i c a t i o n s ,

(38 p er cent)

than the entire p o p u l at ion,

Th ese o b s e r ­

(18 per cent).

vations seem to indicat e that the f low of i n f o r m a t i o n
from the Sta te D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n to in t e r m e d i a t e
special e d u c a t i o n staffs is c han n e l e d t h r o u g h the special
ed uca tio n director.

Theref ore , the concept of the two-

step flow of i n f o r m a t i o n mo d e l is supported.
A p pen dix H also in dic ate s the rel ati ve importance
of sources of i n f o r m a t i o n in the d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f new
ideas about spe cial education.

The m o s t used source was

p r o f e ssi ona l c o n v e n tio ns and c onferences, w h i c h was
selected by 80 pe r cent of the respondents.

Ot her i n t e r ­

mediate staff m e m b e r s w ere ch ose n as a n important source
by 79 per cent of the respondents.

Th is indicates that

interme dia te special e d u c a t i o n s taf f m e m b e r s

feel that

their peers are the second most im portant source of n e w
ideas in special education.

The least used in f o r m a t i o n

source was n o n - e d u c a t o r lay persons,

(9 per cent) and

publica tio ns of i n t e r me dia te s chool dis tricts and the
state d e p a r t m e n t of education,

(18 p e r cent).

A p pen dix H could be used as a g u i d e by those who
desire to introduce a

iew idea into the interme dia te

special e d u c a t i o n s y s ’ m in Michigan.

The most ef fec t i v e

93

i

mass media sources, professional conventions, and p r o ­
fessional journals,

should be u sed initially.

If the

intermediate director and at least one special' education
staff member was reached by the mass m e d i a sources, then
word of mouth or interpersonal co mmunication wou ld help
complete the diffusion of the new idea throughout the
Intermediate special e duc ati on population.
Recommendations
Due to the slowness of the development of special
education services for handicapped children, this study
sought to increase the knowledge of educators regarding
the relationship between certain variables and the ad op­
tion of innovative special education programs, practices,
and procedures.

The relationship shown by this study

suggests some possible ways to aid the adoption process.
According to the findings of this study, if the State
Department of E duc ation wanted to Introduce a new special
education program, practice, or procedure, and wa nted to
assure

ohat the adoption process would have a m a x i m u m

chance of success, it should chose an intermediate school
district where the following conditions e x i s t :
1.

School-age po pul ati on large enough to m ake the
innovation practical.

?..

A special education staff that reads m a n y p r o ­
fessional Journals and belongs to many professional
organizations I.e.

Is professionally involved.

9H
3.

A special edu ca t i o n staff* that has h i g h mo r a l e
I.e. Esprit.

*1.

A d i r e c t o r of special e d u c ati on who mot iv a t e s his
staff by setting a p e r s o n a l example i.e. Thrust.
I

Im p l i c a t i o n s

for Fu rther Study

Al tho u g h this study suggests the conclusions dis ­
cussed above,

it has g e n e r a t e d other topics w h i c h deserve

study.
Opinion Leadership
The c o n t r a d i c t i o n of the d i f f u s i o n of i nnovations
g e n e r a l i z a t i o n that e arlier adoptors have mo re opinion
leadership than later adoptors,

should be investigated.

The mea sure of op ini on leaders hip used in this study was
based upon the in t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n the d i r e c t o r and his
own staff.

An oth er me t h o d of m e a s u r i n g opi nio n le a d e r ­

ship wou ld be to have each of the directors indicate the
names of other dir ectors wi th w h o m he discusses new ideas
in special education.

This w o u l d give a mea s u r e of the

opinion leadership of a d ire c t o r among his p e e r s .

The

relation shi p b e t w e e n the a d o p t i o n of innovati ve special
education programs, practices, and p roc edu res w i t h the
socio-metric m e a s u r e of opi n i o n leadership among i n t e r ­
mediate special e d u c a t i o n directors should be i nve s­
tigated.

95
Financial Var iab les
In v i e w of the r e l a t io nsh ip b e t w e e n inn ov a t i v e n e s s
and financial var ia b l e s found in pr ev i o u s r e s e a r c h and
the c o n t r a dic tio n of this r e l a t i o n s h i p by the present
study,

further i n v e s t i g a t i o n is Indicated.

The r e l a ­

tionship be tween the ad opt ion of in nov a t i v e special
education pr ograms and other financial v a r i a b l e s such as
average staff salary, and directors'

salary,

should be

Investigated.
Intermediate School District
T h i r t y - t w o other states have some form of i n t e r ­
mediate

level of educat iona l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

(Osborne,

1 9 6 9 ).

The results of this study should be compared

with the results of si milar invest iga tio ns in other
states.

Replic ati ons of this study in o t h e r states

should lead to a better u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the fu nct ion
of i ntermediate school districts and the g e n e r ali zability of d i f f u s i o n of I nnov ati on r e s e a r c h and o r g a n i z a ­
tional climate re sea rch to i ntermediate dis tri cts
throughout the United States.
Performance V ari ables
This study used concepts bas ed u p o n the scores
obtained by the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of i n s t r u m e n t s .
organizational climate variables,

The

communication varia­

bles and innovativeness were thus based u p o n the

96
perceptions and recall of the participants.

On the

other hand, the demographic variables used in this study
were based upon facts taken from M ich iga n Department of
Education records.
It is suggested that any further research which
deal3 wi th the functions and problems of intermediate
school districts in Michigan, or any other state, should
include performance variables.

The performance v a r i a ­

bles would be based upon the actual functioning of the
intermediate district,

such as the per cent of the school-

age populat ion being served by various types of special
education programs,

or the ratio of professional special

education staff to the number of handicapped pupils
served within the intermediate district.

The addition

of these performance variables to the demographic v a r i a ­
bles, and conceptual variables of Innovativeness,

organ­

izational climate, and communication behavior should
lead to a more comprehensive u nderstanding of the function
of special education departments in intermediate school
districts.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

97

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, D o n a l d Paul.
Relationship between organiza­
tional climate of el eme n t a r y schools and pe rso nal
variables of p r i n c i p a l s . (Doctoral dissertation,
U n ive rs ity of Minneso ta) A n n Arbor, Mich.:
U n ive r s i t y M i c r o fi lms , 1964.
No. 65-15306.
Anderson, Gary Weldon.
T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of o r g a n i z a ­
tional climates and subgroups in e lem en t a r y schools
(Doctoral disserta tion , U n i v e r s i t y of Arizona)
Ann Arbor, Mich.:
U n i v e r s i t y Mic rof ilm s, 1 9 6 5 .
No. 66-1039.
Andrews, J o h n H. M.
Sch ool o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate:
Some v ali dit y studies.
C a n a d i a n E d u c a t i o n and
Re
sea
rch
Digest
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
,
December, 1 9 6 5 » 5» 3T7_
7_
Bell, Thomas 0.
A study of p e r s o n a l i t y cha rac t e r i s t i c s
of school s u p e r i nte nde nts in r e l a t i o n to a dmi nl s t r a
tive behavior.
(Doctoral d iss ert ati on, U t a h State
Univers ity ) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University Micro­
films, 1968.
No. 68-13767.
Bianchini, «J. and Kaiser, H. P.
F o r t r a n pro gra m for
r e la t i n g factors b e t w e e n studies b a s e d on d i f ­
ferent individuals.
(Mimeograph.)
Bu r e a u of
E d u c a tio nal Research, Un ive rsi ty of Illinois, 1964.
Hlrch, Edward L.
A study of di ffe ren ces b e t w e e n re al
and d e s i r e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate in special
e d uc a t i o n staffs of selected I n t e r med iat e school
districts in the state of Michigan.
Unpublished
Ph.D. disser tat ion , M i c h i g a n State Univer sit y, 1970
Blaire, Ma rga ret S nyd er Morris.
A study of the o r g a n i z a ­
tional climate of schools and t e a c h e r s 1 attitudes
toward students.
(Doctoral di sse rta tio n, Rutgers,
The State University) A nn Arbor, Mich.:
University
Microfilms, 1966.
No. 66-12064.

98

99
.Breivogel, W i l l i a m P.
The r e l a t i o n s h i p of se lected
va ria ble s to the i n t r o d u c t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l
innovations in New Jers ey pub lic sch o o l districts.
U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. di ss e r t a t i o n , Rutgers, The State
Universi ty, 1967.
Brown, J. B.
I d e n t if yin g and c l a s s i f y i n g org ani z a t i o n a l
climate in the t win cities are a element ary schools.
(Doctoral d iss ert ati on, U n i v e r s i t y of Mi nne sot a)
Ann Arbor, Mich.:
U n i v e r s i t y Mic rof ilm s, 1964.
No. 65-7324.
Brush, N o r m a n Dale.
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n some
factors of school o r g a n i z a t i o n a l cli mat e and some
factors of te acher se lf-concept.
(Doctoral
d i s s er tat ion , U n i v ers ity of Illinois) A n n Arbor,
Mich.:
U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , 1966.
No. 66-12296.
Carlson, R. 0.
Sc h o o l su per in t e n d e n t s and the a d o p t i o n
of m o d e r n math:
A social str ucture profile.
In
M a t t h e w B. Miles (ed.), Inn ova t i o n in E d u c a t i o n .
New York:
Bu r e a u of Pub lications, Te ach ers
College, Col umb ia Un ive rsi ty, 1964.
Clark, S ister A n n e L. Study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate f actors and academic p r e ­
paration, p r o f e s s i o n a l experience, and other
re l a t e d va ria ble s of interm edi ate dis tri ct special
ed u c a t i o n directors in Mich iga n.
Unpublished
Ph.D. disserta tio n, M i c h i g a n State Uni ver sit y, 1970.
Cole, B laine Leroy.
An ana lysis of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of
selected factors of c o m m u n i c a t i o n s and o r g a n i z a ­
ti ona l c limate as they r e l a t e to the size of the
el eme nta ry school.
(Doctoral disserta tio n,
Un i v e r s i t y of Missouri) A n n Arbor, Mich.:
Univer­
sity Mic rof ilm s, 1965.
No. 66-141.
Collins, James Albert.
Indivi dua l pe r s o n a l i t y and
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate.
(Doctoral d issertation)
An n Arbor, Mich.:
U n i v e r s i t y M icr ofil ms, 196$.
No. 27-6234.
Cook, E dwa rd Vance.
L e a d e r s h i p b e h a v i o r of e l e m e n t a r y
school princi pal s w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate
of the schools w h i c h administer.
(Doctoral
dissert ati on) An n Arbor, Mich.:
University Micro­
films, 1965.
No. 66-6769.

100
Uuviu, Richard H.
Personal and organizational variables
related to the adoption of educational innovations
in a liberal arts college.
Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Chicago, 1965.
r

Inlanders, Robert Edward.
The relati ons hip of selected
variables to the organizational climate of the
elementary school.
(Doctoral dissertation.
University of Georgia) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University
Microfilms, 1966.
No. 66-13598.
Fleishman, E. A.
Leadership climate, human relations
training and supervisory behavior.
Personnel
P s y c h o l o g y , 1953, 6^, 205-222.
Fleishman, E. A.
Measurement of leadership attitudes in
Industry.
Journal of Applied P s y c h o l o g y . 1953,
37, 153-158.
Fleishman, E. A.
The des cri pti on of supervisory behavior.
Journal of Applied P s y c h o l o g y . 1953, XL* 1-6.
Fleishman, E. A.
Leadership and supervision in industry:
An evaluation of a supervisory training program.
Bureau of E ducational R e s e a r c h . Columbus;
Ohio
State University, 1955.
Ford, Richard William.
The re lationship of psychological
health of elementary school principals to the
organizational climate of schools.
(Doctoral
dissertation, Syracuse University) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University Microfilms, 1966.
No. 67-7110.
Haitema, John S.
A state program for atypical children.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Michigan, 19^5.
Halpin, A. W. and Croft, D. B.
The organizational climate
of s c h o o l s . United States Office of Education,
Department of Health, Ed ucation and Welfare,
Contract Number S A E ' 5^3 (8639), 1962.
Halpin, A. W.
Leader behavior and leader ideology of
educational administrators and air craft c o m m a n d e r s .
Harvard Educational R e v i e w , Winter, 1955, 2 5 .
Halpin, A. W.
Leadership ideology of aircraft commanders.
Journal of Applied P s y c h o l o g y . 1955.

101

Halpin, A. W.
The b eha v i o r of leaders.
Educational
L e a d e r s h i p , December, 1956, 14(3), 172-176.
Halpin, A. W.
leader.

The su per intendent's e f f e c ti ven ess as a
A dmi nis tra tor 's N o t e b o o k . October, 1958,

1 (2 ).
Halpin, A. W.
The Jeadershlp b e h a v i o r of sch o o l s u p e r ­
intendents . Columbus:
U n i v e r s i t y Press, Ohio
State University, 1956.
(2nd ed.)
Chicago:
Un ive rsi ty of Chicago, 1959.
Ilalpin, A. W.
Theory and r ese a r c h in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
New York:
The M a c m i l l a n C o m p a n y , 1966.
Hamlin, Ma rjo rie Mable.
Relationship between organiza­
tional climate of el eme nta ry schools and the de g r e e
of Job sa ti s f a c t i o n of teachers in the schools.
(Doctoral dissertation, Uni ver s i t y of Minnesota)
Ann Arbor, Mich.:
U n i v e r s i t y M icr ofi lms , 1966.
No. 67-7730.
Harris, E. P.
M e a s u r i n g industrial leadership and its
Implications for tra ini ng supervisors.
Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio S tat e Univer sit y, 1952.
Hemphill, J o h n K.
S itu atio nal factors in l e a d e r s h i p .
Columbus:
B ureau of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, Ohio
State University, 19**9 .
Hemphill, Jo hn K.
Patterns of leadership beh avi or
associa ted wit h the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e p u t a t i o n of
the d e p a rt men t of a college.
J o u r n a l of E d u c a ­
tional P s y c h o l o g y . 1955, **6(7) . 317-32**.
Hemphill, John K.
Dimensions of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p e r ­
formance.
N ew York:
E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g Service,
Teachers College, C olu m b i a Un ive rsi ty, 1961.
Hemphill, Joh n K. and Coons,
L eader b eha vio r
d e s c r i p t i o n . Columbus:
P ers onn el Res ear ch k o a r d ,
Ohio State University, 1950.
Hightower, Wi lliam Thomas.
The dominant concerns of
elementary school faculties and o rga niz ati ona l
climate.
(Doctoral disser tat ion , Un i v e r s i t y of
Alabama) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
Un ive r s i t y Microf ilm s,
1965.
No. 66-2907.

102

113 neon, James Harry.
An In vestigation of the org a n i z a ­
tional climate of the elementary schools in a
large urban school system,
(Doctoral dissertation,
University of Georgia) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University
Microfilms, 1965.
No. 66-2478.
Iu e n b e r g , Robert M.
The intermediate administrative
unit:
A chronology of resolutions adopted by the
American Association of School Administrators.
(Mimeographed.)
Ameri can Association of School
Administrators, 1967.

Jenkins, W. D.
A review of leadership studies.
Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1947, 44., 54-79.
Kirk, Treva Bennington.
Behaviors of teachers new to a
building in rel ation to the climate of the school
and the dogmatism of the teacher.
(Doctoral
dissertation, Mi chigan State University) Ann Arbor,
Mich.:
University Microfilms, 1965.
No. 66-401.
Koplyay, Janos B.
The relation shi p be tween teachers'
morale, organizational climate, and school salary
policies in selected suburban schools.
(Doctoral
dissertation, Northwes ter n University) Ann
Arbor, Mich.:
University Microfilms, 1966.
No. 66-34008.
LaGuttuta, Nicholas Peter.
The relationship of teacher
perception of organizational climate and dogmatism.
(Doctoral dissertation, State University of New
York at Buffalo) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University
Microfilms, 1966.
No. 66-13085.
Marcum, Reigo L.
Organizational climate and adoption
of educational innovations.
(Doctoral dissertation,
Utah State University) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University
Microfilms, 1968.
No. 69-1079.
M u y o , Leonard.
National action to combat mental ret a r d a ­
tion.
President's Panel on Mental R e t a r d a t i o n .
U.S Government Printing Office, October, 19^2.
McFadden, Edward Clayton.
The non-participant observer
and organizational climate.
(Doctoral dissertation,
Stanford University) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University
Microfilms, 1966.
No. 66-6317.

103

Emment Francis.
The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate
and certain a d m i n i s t r a t i v e iand p e r s o n n e l varia ble s
in selected high schools.
(Doctoral disserta tio n,
Rutgers, The State Uni ver sit y) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
U n i v e r s i t y Mic rof ilms , 1967.
No. 67-14431.

McWilliams,

M o r t , P. R. and Cornell, F. 0.
A da p t a b i l i t y of public
school s y s t e m s . New York:
Bur eau of Publications,
Teachers College, C o l u m b i a Uni ver sit y, 1938.
Mort,

P. R. and Cornell, F. G.
A m e r i c a n schools in
t r a n s i t i o n . New York:
B u r e a u of Publications,
Teachers College, C o l u m b i a Univer sit y, 1941.

Mort, Paul R.
Studies in e d u c a t i o n a l i n n o v a t i o n from the
institute of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e research:
An overview.
In Innovation in e d u c a t i o n , M a t t h e w Miles (ed.).
New York:
B u r e a u of Publica tio ns, Teachers College,
Co lum bia U n i v e rs ity , 1964.
Mullak, S. A.
A fa cto r analytic i n v e s t i g a t i o n of e q u i v a ­
lence of p e r s o n a l i t y ; f a c t o r s and semantic factors.
U n p u b lis hed Ph.D. disse rta tio n, Uni ver sit y of Utah,
1963.
Murphy, Jos eph Allison.
An i n v e s t i g a t i o n into cer t a i n
personality factors of eleme nta ry school teachers
and princip als wit h r e f e r e n c e to the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
climate of the school.
(Doctoral disser tat ion ,
U n ive rs ity of Georgia) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
U niv ers ity
Microfilms, 1 9 6 6 . No. 67-3577.
Null, Eld on James.
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the o r g a n i z a ­
tional c limate of a sc hoo l and per so n a l variables
of members of the t e a c h i n g staff.
(Doctoral
dissert ati on, U niv er s i t y of Minnesota) An n Arbor,
Mich.:
U n i v e r s i t y M i c r of ilm s, 1965No. 65-15212.
Osborne, J ohn R.
A mod el for the d e v e l o p m e n t for
Instruc tio nal Im pro vem ent services at the i n t e r ­
me d i a t e sc hoo l di strict level In Michigan.
U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. disser tat ion , M i c h i g a n State
University, 1969Peach, Sa m u e l W.
R e l a t ion shi ps b e t w e e n c er t a i n factors
In the role of the school pr incipal and the a d o p t i o n
of Innovati ve practices.
(Doctoral dis sertation,
Univers ity of Washington) A n n Arbor, Mich.:
University Mi cro fil ms, 1967.
No. 68-9320.

10*1

Petrie, Thomas Alan.
Change in organizational climate
after leader succession.
(Doctoral dissertation,
Ohio State University) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University Microfilms, 1966.
No. 66-10035.
Preislng, Paul P.
The relation shi p of staff tenure and
administrative succession to structural innovation.
(Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University)
Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University Microfilms, 1968.
No. 68-11381.
Richland, M a l c o m b . A study to define an operational
index of innovation for school administrators.
(Doctoral dissertation,
Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University Microfilms, 1968.
No. 68-170*40.
Rogers, E.
Diffusion of i n n o v a t i o n s .
Free P r e s s , 1962.

New York:

The

Roosa, Jack L.
A study of organizational climate, leader
behavior, and their relation to the rate of
adoption of educational innovations in selected
school districts.
(Doctoral dissertation, State
University of New York at Albany) Ann Arbor, M i c h . :
University Microfilms, 1968.
No. 69-669*4.
Sargent, James Currier.
An analysis of principal and
staff perceptions of high school organizational
climate.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University M i c r o ­
films, 1966.
No. 67-876.
Spencer, Eugene N.
Variables affecting the adoption
rates of educational innovations in selected school
districts of Oakland County.
Unpubl ish ed Ph.D.
dissertation, Wayne State University, 1967.
St og d i l l , Ralph M.
Personal factors associated with
leadership:
A survey of the literature.
Journal
of P s y c h o l o g y . 19*48, 25., 35-71.
Stogdill, Ralph M.
Leader b e h a v i o r . Columbus:
Bureau
of Business Research, College of Commerce and
Administration, Ohio State University, 1957.
Stogdill, Ralph M. and Shartle,
Methods in the
study of administrative le ade rsh ip^ C o l u m b u s :
Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University,
1955.

105
T a g i u r i , R. and Litwin, G. H.
Organizational c l i m a t e :
Exp l o r a t i o n s of a c o n c e p t . Boston:
D i v i s i o n of
Research, Gra d u a t e School of B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
Ha r v a r d Univer sit y, 1968.
Tanner, Hugh Gordon.
A study of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
cl imate of schools and the s ocial b e h a v i o r of
sel ec ted sch ool a d m i n ist rat ors .
(Doctoral
d i s s e rta tio n, U n i v e r s i t y of Michig an) A n n Arbor,
Mich.:
U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o fil ms, 1966.
No. 67-8350.
Vanderlain, Al d o n a S.
A v a l i d a t i o n of f actor II esprit
of the O.C.D.Q.
(Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y
of Maryland) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University Mic r o ­
films, 1968.
No. 69-729.
VIrjo, H e l e n Elizabeth.
Effects of s o c i o e c o n o m i c set t i n g
ahd o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate on pr obl ems bro ugh t to
elementary s chool offices.
(Doctoral dis se r t a t i o n ,
W a yne State U niversity) A nn Arbor, Mich.:
University
Microfil ms , 1965.
No. 66-1255*
i

Wiggins, Thomas W.
L e a d e r b e h a v i o r ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s and
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate.
(Doctoral di ss e r t a t i o n ,
Cl aremont Gr adu ate Sch ool and U n i v e r s i t y Center)
A n n Arbor, Mich.:
U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , 1968.
No. 68-18296.
Yadov, D h a r a r n P.
C o m m u n i c a t i o n str uct ure and I n n o v a t i o n
d i f f u s i o n in two In d i a n v i l l a g e s . E ast Lansing:
R e s e a r c h Report for U.S. A.I.D., D e p a r t m e n t of
C o m m u nic ati ons , M i c h i g a n State U n i v ers ity , 1 9 6 7 .

appendices

106

APPENDIX A
O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C LIMATE D E S C R I P T I O N
QUESTIONNAIRE

107

AP P ENDIX A
OR GANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE
A. W. H alpin and D. B. Croft

The Items in this questionnaire describe typical
behaviors or conditions that occur within a school
organization.

Please indicate to what extent each of

these descriptions characterizes your s c h o o l .

Please do

not evaluate the items in terms of "good" or "bad"
behavior, but read each item carefully and r espond in
terms of how well the statement describes your school.
The descriptive scale on which to rate the items
is printed at the top of each page.

Please read the

Instructions which describe how you should mark your
answers.
The purpose of this questionnaire is to secure a
description of the different ways In which teachers behave
and of the various conditions under which they must work.
After you have answered the questionnaire we will examine
the behaviors or conditions that have been described as
typical by the majority of the teachers In your school,
and we will construct from this description,

a portrait

of the Organizational Climate of your school.
Copyrighted,

1966, Andrew W. Halpin, the Macmillan Company
R eproduced with permission of publisher.

108

109

M A R K I N G I N S T R UC TIO NS

Pr inted b elo w Is an example of a ty pic al it em
found in the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate D e s c r i p t i o n
Questionnaire:
1.

Rarely occurs

2.

Sometimes occurs

3.

O fte n Occurs

^.

Very freque ntl y occurs

Teacher s call each other by t hei r
first names

1

2

3

4

In this e xa mpl e the respo nde nt m a r k e d a l t e r nat ive
3 to show that the i n t e r - p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p
described by this item "often occurs" at his school.
Of course,

any of the other alternat ive s

could be

selected, d e p e n d i n g upon how often the b e h a v i o r
described by the i t e m does, indeed, occ ur in your
school.
Please mark your response clearly,
example.

as in the

PLEASE BE SURE TH AT YOU M A R K EVE RY ITEM.

B I O G R A P H I C A L INFORM AT I ON

Please place a check m a r k to the right
a ppropriate c a t e g o r y .
8.

Position:

Principal
T e ach er
Other

9.

Sex:

Man
Woman

10.

Age:

20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 and over

11.

Years of e xperience
in education:

0-3
4-9
10-19
20-29
30 and over

12.

Years at this
school:

0-3
4-9
10-19
20 or over

Ill
1.
2.
3.
4.

Rarely occurs
Sometimes occurs
Of ten occurs
Very f r e q uen tly
occurs

13.

Teachers' closest friends are ot her faculty
members at this school.

12

3 4

14 .

The m a n n er ism s of te ach ers at this school
are annoying.

12

3 4

15.

Teachers spend t i m e . a f t e r school wi th
students wh o have individu al problems.

12

3 4

16 .

Instructions for the ope ration of
teaching aids are available.

12

3 4

17-

Teachers Invite oth er faculty to visit
them at home

.12

3 4

18.

There is a minority group of teachers who
always oppose the majority.

.12

34

19.

Extra books are available for c l a s s r o o m use.

12

34

20.

Sufficient time is given to p repare
a dmi nistrative reports.

12

34

21.

Teachers know the family b a c k g r o u n d of
other faculty m e m b e r s .

12

34

Teachers exert group press ure on nonc o nfo rm ing faculty members.

12

34

23.

In faculty meetings, there is a feeling of
" l e t ’s get things done."

12

34

24.

Ad ministrative p ape r wor k is b u r d e n s o m e at
this school.

12

34

25.

Teachers talk about their p e r s o n a l life to
other faculty members.

12

34

26.

Teachers seek special favors f r o m the
principal.

12

34

27.

School supplies are readily a v a i l a b l e for
use in classwork.

1 2

34

28.

Student progress reports require
work.

12

34

22

.

too much

112
1.
2.
3.
4.

Rarely occurs
Sometimes occurs
Often occurs
Very frequently
occurs

29.

Teach ers have fun s o c i a l i z i n g togeth er d u r i n g
school time.

12

3 4

30.

T e ac h e rs in terrupt other faculty m embers who
are t a l k i n g in staff meetings.

12

3 4

31.

Most of the teach ers here accept the faults
of their colleagues.

12

3 4

3?.

T eachers have too many committee requirements.

1 2

3 4

33.

There is c on s i d e r a b l e laughter wh en
teache rs g a t h e r informally.

12

3 4

34.

Te achers ask n o n s e n s i c a l questions in
faculty meetings.

12

3 4

39.

Cu st odial service

12

34

3b.

Routine duties
teaching.

12

3 4

37.

Teachers prepare a d m i n i s t r a t i v e repo rts by
themselves.

12

3 4

38 .

Te achers ramble wh e n they talk in faculty
meetings.

12

34

39.

Teachers
spirit.

12

3 4

40.

The p ri n cipal goes out of his way to help
teachers.

12

34

41.

The pr incipal helps teachers solve pe rsonal
problems.

12

34

42.

Teachers

12

3 4

43.

The teachers a c c o m p l i s h their work with
great vim, v i go r and pleasure.

1 2

34

44.

The p ri n cipal sets an exa mple by w o r k i n g
hard himself.

12

34

is available when needed.

interfere with the job of

at this school show mu c h school

at this school stay by themselves.

113.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Rarely occurs
Sometimes occurs
Often occurs
Very frequently
occurs

45.

The principal does personal favors for
teachers.

12

34

46.

Teachers eat lunch by themselves in their
own classrooms

12

34

47.

The morale of

the teachers is high.

12

34

48.

The p rin cipal

uses constructive criticism.

12

34

49.

The principal stays after school to help
teachers finish their work.

12

34

50.

Teachers socialize together in small select
groups.

12

34

51.

The principal makes all c las s-s cheduling
decisions.

12

34

52.

Teachers are contacted by the principal
each d a y .

12

3 4

53.

The principal is well prepared when he
speaks at school functions.

12

34

54.

The principal helps staff members settle
minor differences

12

3 4

55.

The principal
teachers.

12

34

56.

Teachers

12

3 4

schedules the wo rk for the

leave the grounds during the school

day.
57.

Tht! principal criticizes a specific act
rather than a staff member.

12

3 4

58.

Teachers help
taught.

select which courses will be

12

3 4

59.

The principal

corrects teachers'

12

3 4

60 .

The principal

talks a great deal.

12

3 4

mistakes.

114

1.
2.
3.
4.

6 1.

The p r i n c ipa l explains his reasons
c r i t i c i s m to teachers.

62.

Rarely occurs
S ome times occurs
O f t e n occurs
Very frequently
occurs

for

1 2

3 4

The p r i n cip al tries to get b e t t e r salaries
for teachers.

12

34

63.

Extra duty for teachers
spicuously.

12

3 4

64.

The rules set by the p r i n c i p a l are ne v e r
questioned.

12

3 4

69.

The pri nc i p a l looks out for the p e r s o n a l
welfare o f teachers.

1 2

3 4

66.

School secreta ria l service is a vai lable
teachers use.

for

12

3 4

67.

The princi pal runs the faculty m e e t i n g like
a business conference.

12

3 4

68.

The princip al is in the b u i l d i n g before
teachers arrive.

12

3 4

69.

Teachers work tog e t h e r p r e p a r i n g a d m i n i s t r a tive reports.

12

3 4

70.

Faculty meetings are o rgan ize d a c c o r d i n g to
a tight agenda.

12

3 4

71.

Faculty meetings are mainly p r i n c i p a l report meetings.

12

3 4

72.

The pr inc ipa l tells teachers of new ideas he
has run across.

12

3 4

73.

Teachers talk about l eaving the school
system.

12

3 4

is po ste d con-

>•

74.

The princ ipa l checks the sub jec t - m a t t e r
ability of teachers.

12

3 4

76.

The pr incipal is easy to understand.

12

3 4

115
1.
2.
3.
4.

Rarely occurs
Sometimes occurs
Of ten occurs
Very frequently
occurs

76.

Tea che rs are inf prm ed of the results of a
su per vis or' s visit.

12

3 4

77.

G r a d i n g pr actices are s t a n d a r d i z e d at this
school.

12

3 4

78.

The p rin c i p a l insures that teachers w o r k to
th eir full capacity.

12

3 4

79.

Te achers leave the b u i l d i n g as soon as
po ssible at day's end.

12

3 4

80.

The pr inc i p a l clarifies w r o n g ideas a
t e a c h e r may have.

12

3 4

APPENDIX B
INTE RMEDIATE S CHOOL D IS T RI C T SP E CI A L ED U CA T I O N
QUESTIONNAIRE

116

I N T E R MEDIATE S C H O O L D I S T R I C T SPE C I A L E D U C A T I O N
QUESTIONNAIRE
General Instructions
This q u e s t i o n n a i r e is d e s i g n e d t o m e a s u r e the o r g a n i ­
zational behavior,

c o m m u n i c a t i o n behavior,

as w e l l as to

gather g eneral b i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a c o n c e r n i n g i n t e r m e d i a t e
depart m e nts of special education.
Y o u r r e s p o n s e s to items on this q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be
held in the strictest confidence.

T o .p r o t e c t

the a n o n y m i t y

of each r e s p o n d e n t and to ins u r e a m e a n i n g f u l response ,
please o bserve the f o l l o w i n g procedures:
1.

Use a N u m b e r 2 or soft lead pe n c i l to m a r k the
an s w e r sheet.

2.

M a r k each r e s p o n s e c a r e f u l l y .

3.

C o m p l e t e l y e r a s e all errors.

4.

Do not discuss items w i t h o t h e r staff m e m b e r s
w h i l e a n s w e r i n g the questionnaire.

5.

P l a c e your an s w e r sheet in t h e 8*5 x 11 m a n i l a
e n v e l o p e provided.
T u r n in this questionnaire.

6.

S p e c i f i c Instructions
O n the u p p e r left hand side of the an s w e r s h e e t is
a box m a r k e d "Position."

P l e a s e indicate y o u r p o s i t i o n by

marking the a p p r o p r i a t e space accor d i n g to the f o l l o w i n g code:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Director
Su p e r v i s o r
Diagnostician
School Social W o r k e r
Sp e e c h C o r r e c t i o n i s t

6 . Type C C o n s u l t a n t
7. T e a c h e r C o n s u l t a n t (Type 4)
8 . T e a c h e r of H o m e b o u n d
and/or H o s p i t a l i z e d
9.
Other

Each s e c t i o n of this q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be p r e c e d e d by its
own s p e c ific instructions.

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE
A. W. H a l p i n a n d D. B.

Croft

T h e items in this q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e s c r i b e t y p i c a l
be h a v i o r s or condit i o n s that occur w i t h i n an organizat i o n .

.

Please i ndi c a t e to w h a t e x t e n t each of t h e s e , d e s c r i p t i o n s
characterizes y o u r special e d u c a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t staff in the
interm e d iate office.

P l e a s e do n o t e v a l u a t e the items in

terms of "good" o r "bad" behavior, b u t r e a d e a c h i t e m c a r e ­
fully and r e s p o n d in terms of h o w w e l l the s t a t e m e n t d e s c r i b e s
your staff.
The d e s c r i p t i v e scale on w h i c h to r a t e the items is
pr inted at the top of e a c h page.

P l e a s e r e a d the i n s t r u c ­

tions w h i c h d e s c r i b e h o w y o u sh o u l d m a r k y o u r answers.
The p u r p o s e of this q u e s t i o n n a i r e is to secure a
d e s c r i p t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t w a y s in w h i c h m e m b e r s of the
staff b e h a v e and of the v a r i o u s c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r w h i c h they
must work.

This q u e s t i o n n a i r e also asks e a c h r e s p o n d e n t to

indicate w h a t b e h a v i o r he d e s i r e s for the staff and d i r e c t o r
of i n t e r m e d i a t e spe c i a l e d u c a t i o n d e p a rtments.

After you

have a n s w e r e d the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , w e w i l l e x a m i n e t h e b e h a v ­
iors or conditions t h a t h a v e b e e n d e s c r i b e d as t y p i c a l b y
the m a j o r i t y of the staff memb e r s ,
from this des c r i p t i o n ,

and we w i l l const r u c t

a p o r t r a i t of the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C l i m a t e

of y o u r staff.
Copyrighted,

1966, A n d r e w W. Halpin,

the M a c m i l l a n Co.

R e p r o d u c e d w i t h p e r m i s s i o n of the publisher.

2

MARKING INSTRUCTIONS
P r i n t e d b e l o w is an exa m p l e of a t y p i c a l i t e m f o u n d i n the
Organizational Climate Description Q u e s t i o n n a i r e :
REAL

DESIRED

1.

R a r e l y oc c u r s

1.

Should rarely occur

2.

Sometimes occurs

2.

Should sometimes occur

3.

O f t e n occurs

3.

Should often occur

4.

V e r y freque n t l y o c c u r s

4.

Should very frequently
occur

Sample item:
REAL
2
Staff m e m b e r s call each
o ther b y th e i r first
names.
In this example,

---

3

DESIRED
4

g a g --”

1

2

3

--- 0 g g ZZ Z ZZZ

the r e s p o n d e n t m a r k e d a l t e r n a t i v e

3 u n d e r the R E A L c o l u m n o n the A n s w e r S h e e t to s h o w t h a t
the i n te r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p d e s c r i b e d by this i t e m does
in fact "often occur"

am o n g his colleagues.

The r e s p o n d e n t a l s o m a r k e d a l t e r n a t i v e 2 u n d e r the
D E SIRED column to indic a t e t h a t he d e s i r e s that this b e h a v i o r
"should sometimes occur."
P l e a s e m a r k y o u r r e s p o n s e s clearly, m a k i n g s u r e that
you m a r k every item in B O T H C O L U M N S .
sary,

If changes are n e c e s ­

c o m p l e t e l y erase the r e s p o n s e y o u w i c h to change.

DO N O T C O N T I N U E U N T I L S P E C I F I C I N S T R U C T I O N S A R E GIVEN.

DESIRED

RE Alt
Rarely occurs
Sometimes occurs
0 £ t en occurs
v e r y frequently occurs

1.

2.

3.
4.
1.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Should
Should
Should
Should

rarely occur
sometimes occ u r
often occur
v e r y frequent l y occur

Staff m e m b e r s 1 closest friends are other members of this
staff.

2 . The mannerisms of members of this staff are annoying.
3.

Staff members spend time after hours w i t h teachers w h o
have individual problems.

4.

Instructions for opera t i o n of educational m e d i a are
available.

5.

Staff members invite other members to v i s i t t h e m at
home.

6 . T here is a m i n o r i t y group of staff members w h o opposes
the majority.
7.
8

.

9.

E x t r a materials are available for staff use.
Sufficient time is given to prepare administrative
reports.
Staff memb e r s k n o w the family b a c k g r o u n d of other staff
members.

10 . Staff members exert group pres s u r e on n o n c o nform i n g
staff m e m b e r s .

11 .

In staff meetings,
things done."

there is a feeling of "let's get

12 . A dministrative p a p e r w o r k is burdensome in the i n t e r ­
m e d i a t e office.
13.

Staff members talk about their personal life to o t h e r
staff members.

14.

Staff members seek special favors from the director.

15.

O ffice supplies are readily available for u s e of
i ndividual staff members.

16.

Student contact reports require too m u c h work.

17.

Staff mem b e r s h a v e fun socializing together during
work h o u r s .
PLEASE CONTINUE
4

REAL
1.

2

.

3.
4.

DESIRED

R a r e l y oc c u r s
S o m e t i m e s oc c u r s
O f t e n occurs
V e r y f r e q u e n t l y occurs

1.
2.
3.
4.

Should
Sho u l d
Should
Should

rarely'occur
sometimes o c c u r
o f t e h occur
very f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r

18.

Staff m e m b e r s i n t e r r u p t o t h e r m e m b e r s w h o are t a l k i n g
in staff meetings.

19.

M o s t of the staff a c c e p t the faults of their colleagues.

20 . Staff mem b e r s have too m a n y committee requirements.
21 . 7 h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l e laughter w h e n the staff g a t h e r s
informally.

22 . M e m b e r s ask n o n s e n s i c a l q u e s t i o n s in staff meetings.
23.

C u stodial service is a v a i l a b l e w h e n needed.

24.

R o u t i n e du t i e s i n t e r f e r e w i t h i n d i v i d u a l job r e q u i r e ­
ments .

25.

S taff m e m b e r s p r e p a r e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e p o r t s by t h e m ­
s elves .

26.

M e m b e r s r a m b l e w h e n t h e y talk in staff meetings.

27.

M e m b e r s of this staff s h o w loyalty to the i n t e r ­
m e d i a t e district.

28.

T h e d i r e c t o r goes out of h i s w a y to h e l p staff m e m b e r s .

29.

T h e direc t o r helps staff m e m b e r s solve p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s

30.

M e m b e r s of this staff stay b y themselves.

31.

Staff m e m b e r s a c c o m p l i s h t h e i r w o r k w i t h g r e a t vim,
vigor, and pleasure.

32.

T h e d i r e c t o r sets

an e x a m p l e b y w o r k i n g h a r d h i m s e l f .

33.

T h e d i r e c t o r does
staff.

p e r s o n a l favors for m e m b e r s of the

34.

S taff m e m b e r s e a t

lunch b y themselves.

35.

T h e m o r a l e of the

staff is high.

36.

T h e d i r e c t o r uses

c o n s t r u c t i v e criticism.

37.

T h e d i r e c t o r stays a f t e r hours to h e l p staff me m b e r s
f inish t h e i r work.
P L E A S E CONT I N U E

DES I B E D

BEAL
1.
2.
3.
4.

Rarely occurs
Sometimes occurs
O f t e n occurs
V e r y frequently occurs

1.
2.
3.
4.

Should
Should
Should
Should

rarely occur
sometimes occur
o f t e n occur
v e r y frequent l y occur

38.

Staff members socialize together in small se l e c t groups.

39.

The director makes all travel scheduling decisions.

40.

Staff members are contacted by the director each day.

41.

The director is w e l l p r e p a r e d w h e n h e speaks at i nter­
m e diate district functions.

42.

The director helps staff members settle m i n o r d i f f e r ­
ences .

43.

The director schedules the w o r k for the staff.

44.

Staff members may deviate from their w o r k schedule at
their own discretion.

45.

Staff members help select areas of d i s c u s s i o n for
staff meetings.

46.

The director corrects staff members' mistakes.

47.

The director talks a great deal.

48.

The director explains his reasons for c r i t i c i s m to
staff members.

49.

The director tries to get be t t e r salaries for staff
members.

50.

E x tra duty for staff members is p o s t e d conspicuously.

51.

The rules set by the director are ne v e r questioned.

52.

The director looks out for the pers o n a l w e l f a r e of
staff.

his

53.

Secretarial service is available for staff members'

54.

The director runs the staff meetings like a business
conference.

55.

The director is in the office bef o r e staff mem b e r s
arrive
PLEASE CONTINUE
6

use.

R EAL
1.
2.
3.
4.

DESIRED

R a rely o c c u r s
S o m e t i m e s occurs
O f t e n occurs
V e r y f r e q u e n t l y occurs

1.
2.
3.
4,

Should
Sho u l d
Should
Should

rarely occur
sometimes occur
o f t e n occur
very f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r

56.

Staff m e m b e r s w o r k toge t h e r p r e p a r i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
reports.

57.

Staff m e e t i n g s are o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g to a tight
agenda.

58.

Staff m e e t i n g s are m a i n l y d i r e c t o r - r e p o r t meetings.

59.

The d i r e c t o r tells staff m e m b e r s of n e w ideas h e has
r u n across.

60.

S taff m e m b e r s talk about leaving the i n t e r m e d i a t e
district.

61.

T h e d i r e c t o r checks the c o m p e t e n c e of s t a f f members.

62.

The d i r e c t o r is easy to understand.

63.

Staff m e m b e r s cure info r m e d of the results of a s u p e r ­
v i s o r ' s visit.

64.

The d i r e c t o r insures t h a t staff member's w o r k to their
f u ll capacity.
Items 65 t h r o u g h 71 are i n t e n d e d to ga t h e r B i o g r a p h i ­

cal information.

P l e a s e m a r k the a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e o n

your A n s w e r Sh e e t for e a c h item.
6 5.

Age

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

20-29
30-39
40-49
50^59
60 or o v e r

66.

Sex

1.
2.

Male
Fe m a l e

67.

Y ears on this staff

1.
2.
3.
4.

0-3
4-9
10-19
20 or over

P L E A S E CONTINUE

68.

Years of experience
in education

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

0-3
4-9
10-19
20-29
30 or o v e r

69.

Experience in special
e d ucation

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

0-1 years
2-3 years
4-5 years
6-7 years
8 years or m o r e

70.

H i ghest degree held

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Associate
Bachelors
Masters
Specialist
Docto r a t e

71.

Y e ar *of highest
degree

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

1968-1969
1966-1967
1964-1965
1962-1963
1961 or bef o r e

PLEASE CONTINUE QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE N E X T PAGE.

Items 72 t h r o u g h 85 w e r e d e s i g n e d to m e a s u r e t h e c o m m u n ­
ications b e h a v i o r of I n t e r m e d i a t e S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t s .
P l e a s e m a r k the a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e on y o u r a n s w e r s h e e t
for e a c h item.
Items 72-81
P l e a s e indi c a t e y o u r m o s t i m p o r t a n t source(s) of
i n f o r m a t i o n about n e w ideas in S p e c i a l Education.
Place a
mark u n d e r N u m b e r 1 a f t e r the source(s) that y o u f e e l are
m o s t important.
72.

I n t e r m e d i a t e D i r e c t o r of Special Education.

73.

Intermediate Special Education s t a f f .

74.

L o c a l Special E d u c a t i o n personnel.

75.

N o n - e d u c a t o r lay persons.

76.

S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n consultants.

77.

C o n v e n t i o n s of p r o f e s s i o n a l organizations.

78.

P u b l i c a t i o n s i.e. Jour n a l s of P r o f e s s i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s .

79.

I n t e r m e d i a t e school d i s t r i c t p u b l i c a t i o n e.g. N e w s l e t t e r .

80.

State D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n publications.

81.

T h e mass m e d i a i.e. radio,

television,

Items 82-86
P l e a s e w r i t e y o u r r e s p o n s e (a number)
the a p p r o p r i a t e num b e r o n the a n s w e r sheet.

newspapers.
o n the line a f t e r

B2.

In h o w m a n y p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s .are y o u a dues
p a y i n g mem b e r ?

83.

H o w m a n y p r o f e s s i o n a l journals d o y o u r e a d r e g u l a r l y ?

84.

H o w m a n y da ys d u r i n g the 1968-69 school y e a r d i d y o u
s p e n d away f r o m the i n t e r m e d i a t e d i s t r i c t a t t e n d i n g
p r o f e s s i o n a l conferences, conventions, c o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g s ,
or organization meetings?

85.

O n the lines provided, p l e a s e w r i t e the P o s i t i o n (Social
w orker, Director, etc.) of t h r e e p e r s o n s o n the i n t e r ­
m e d i a t e staff w i t h w h o m y o u d i s c u s s n e w ideas for
s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n programs, practices, or proce d u r e s .

86.

O n the a v e r a g e , h o w m a n y h o u r s do y o u spend in the
i n t e r m e d i a t e o f f i c e each week.
T H A N K Y O U F O R Y O U R C O O P E R A T I O N IN T H I S S T U D Y

appendix

c

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

126

S U P P L E M E N T A R Y INST R U C T I O N S
A fter r e a d i n g pages 1, 2, and 3 of the questionnaire:
1.

Please note that for each item, you w i l l first r e s p o n d
to how y o u presently p e r c e i v e the situation to be and
then how you would desire it to be.
Notice also that
the answer sheet is n u m b e r e d across the entire line for
numbers 1 and 2; 3 and 4 on the second line, etc.

2.

When statements do not directly apply to an expe r i e n c e
you have had, please an s w e r the q u e s t i o n on the basis of
how you b e l i e v e , s u c h an e x p e r i e n c e w o u l d have re s u l t e d
had it o c c u r r e d — and h o w you w o u l d have d e s i r e d it to b e .

3.

Questions which relate to " s u p e r v i s o r ’' b e h a v i o r s h o u l d be
answered w i t h respect to the su p e r v i s i o n regardl e s s of
w h ether it is the director, supervisor, or chairman of
a department.

4.

You will notice on the ans w e r sheet for items 72 t h r o u g h
81 that only space n u m b e r 1 is numbered.
Of items 72-81,
please fill the first space only for those Items w h i c h
you feel are the most important source(s) of i n f o r m a t i o n
about new ideas In special education.

5.

Items 82, 83, 84, and 86 require a n u m b e r to be w r i t t e n
on the red line to the right of the I t e m number.
If a
"0" is appropriate, please place a "0" on the line
rather than leaving it blank.

6.

For item 85 you are asked to write the positions of three
people on your staff with w h o m you most o f t e n discuss
new ideas, practices, or p r o c e d u r e s for special education.
B’or example, If you dis c u s s new ideas most often with
two speech therapists and a c o n s u l t a n t , your response
might be:
line 1 - speech therapist; line 2 - speech
therapist; line 3 - consultant.

7.

When you have finished, please check your a n s w e r sheet
to make sure you have r e s p o n d e d to all items.
An
envelope is b e i n g p r o v i d e d for r e t u r n i n g the q u e s t i o n ­
naire and answer sheets.

127

APPENDIX D
ROTA T E D ITEM FA C T O R M A T R I X FOR 64 ITEMS OF
THE REVISED OCDQ

128

(N » 520)

ROTATED ITEM FACTOR MATRIX FOR 64 ITEMS OF THE REVISED OCDQ (N » 520 )

1
2

3
it
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12

13
l»t
lb
16

17
18
19
;*o
21
22
23
2 It
2b
26
27
28

29
30
31
32
33
3'*
35
36
37
38
39
^10
111
42
113
Jltt
<19

46

'17

<18
49
50

51
52
53
5*1
55

56
57
58
59

60

61
62

63
64

I

H

III

IV

07*
-0 1
01
21
07
-1 5

08
38
07
04
04
36
03
07
-0 8
42
-1 6
11
11
31
-0 1
16
21
53
-2 7
14
-0*4

-4 4
03
-1 8
-1 4
-5 9
-0 3
-1 7
05
-6 7
-1 4
-0 0
01
-6 3
-1 8
-0 7
-0 9
-5 1
-0 0
-2 0
11
-4 8
-0 7
-1 3
-0 4
-0 5
01
-2 2
-0 9
-3 3
37
-1 6
-0 4
-2 7
21
-2 1
04
-0 5
-1 1
02
-0 2
08
-1 1
-0 2
-1 1
-1 3
10
-0 9
-0 5
-1 8
05
-0 4
-1 8
-0 4
11
05
-2 4
01
-1 2
-1 0
-0 0
-0 2
02
-1 2
04

06
-0 7
-0 4
13
16
-0 3
11
06
08
19
18
15
-0 3
05
03
02
-0 8
05
-1 2
14
-0 9
-0 3
-0 4
01
-1 9
-1 3
09
-0 0
-0 5
-1 1
02
-0 2
08
-1 1
-0 2
-1 1
09
-0 1
33
58
-0 4
34
60
-2 3
35
46
22
06
18
10
22
07
10
19
05
28
20
-0 4
20
05
47
-0 2
31
37

2 It

19
01
-0 5
34
-0 4
04
-1 5
09
05
02
02
28
-0 8
20
08
15

-0 3
-0 7
-1 4
31
77
51
-0 8
24
63
38
10
44
61
49
00
-0 4
09
62
44
-0 3
10
20
16
-3 2
49
36
08
-0 1
63
14
09
28
17
13
-1 2
51
-1 2
30
64
36
44

,

58
-05

20
13
50
-1 7
-0 2
-0 2
25
-2 1
-1 1
15
19
-1 5
02
14
19
-0 8
02
-0 9
03
-0 3
33
03
18
23
15
02
08
04
-0 4
11
-0 8
t.-0 2
-0 9
-2 6
-0 5
02
15
-1 0
-0 4
-0 6
-0 7

V

VI

V II

V III

h2

05
23
-0 5
-2 0
01
-1 0
-2 7
-5 8
-0 4
-0 3
-0 6
50
-0 3
19
-4 6
49
-1 0
13
-1 0
49
08
20
-3 8
61
-0 4
14
06
-1 0
12
10
01
-1 0
03
02
-0 4
15
04
14
11
-0 3
-1 6
03
-0 1
-0 8
-0 4
01
09
-0 9
05
-0 7
07
06
-3 2
08
-0 4
-0 1
26
14
-1 0
-1 0
06
-1 4
-1 5
-0 3

-0 0
21
-0 6
16
-0 5
36
-0 0
02
-0 1
27
-0 0
18
20
27
02
00
-0 1
-0 7
-0 5
10
08
05
32
21
23
-0 9
07
08
-0 2
02
-1 1
-1 2
05
-0 1
-0 5
-0 3
-0 2
44
08
-0 8
13
-1 6
08
-0 8
-2 8
00
18
-0 6
-1 3
23
15
-0 1
09
43
29
09
53
45
-1 4
11
13
05
05
12

10
13
07
33
22
-1 2
37
05
-1 0
-0 7
38
05
-0 5
-1 7
35
-0 1
-0 0
-0 7
13
03
11
12
12
-0 3
24
01
49
03
-1 9
-1 8
30
09
-2 9
-0 7
52
29
-0 6
-0 6
-0 1
-0 3
11
-0 2
-0 1
01
28
13
-1 1
33
21
09
-2 4
02
44
33
01
-0 3
01
-1 1
13
-5 7
17
22
22
21

06
16
6o
-1 7
14
17
-0 6
-0 0
-0 3
04
09
-0 3
-0 1
-2 0
-1 5
-1 4
-0 4
-1 2
-1 9
24
04
-1 9
02
-1 4
05
10
22
-0 2
-0 2
06
52
22
18
39
15
13
35
-0 4
13
-0 2
-0 1
-1 4
-0 9
04
-0 3
-0 2
09
-1 4
03
-1 0
14
-0 3
-0 4
04
08
21
01
-1 0
11
-1 1
01
-0 3
-1 6
15

22
29
40
29
45
34
31
38
47
31
33
33
46
33
37
29
32
33
27
36
30
43
30
47
18
33
48
62
44
26
50
50
40
25
55
51
40
26
15
36
45
37
37
20
34
37
27
41
26
10
16
44
35
36
18
23
47
28
37
40
37
48
34
42

The decimal points have been omitted,

129

APPENDIX E
INTER C O R R ELATION M A T R I X F O R 64 ITEMS
OF INT E R M E D I A T E R E V I S I O N OF O.C.D.Q.

130

2

1
1
3
3
*
5
6
T
a
9
10
U
12
13
It
IS
IS
IT
10
19
20
21
22
23
2*
2S
26
27
26
29

30

1,00
00*
06
09
31
10
11
- 02
20
06
09
. 00
20
12
- 01
01
11
01
02
06
10
06
07
01
- 02
* 01
15
07
17
• 10
06
03
11
• 02
16
06
11
09
- 05
06
05
17
- 02
02
06
01
- 06
06
15
03

31
32
33
36
3S
36
37
36
39
60
61
62
s
66
65
66
67
66
69
SO
SI - or
52
12
11
S3
56
01
02
95
56
11
06
57
56 - 01
59
15
60 - 07
6l
05
62
22
06
63
66
08

1.00
- 09
- 03
00
17
• 08
• 07
06
16
- 19
15
05
17
- 17
09
01
IB
• 16
10
- 06
23
. a!
23
01
16
- 13
• 0?
- 01
09
• 10
- 17
03
-0 3
* 12
- 06
02
15
* 05
02
-0 5
- 06
- 06
01
• 16
. 00
12
- 06
* 05
• 01
06
- 06
- 10
OS
06
- 03
01
16
- 06
16
-0 5
-0 9
• 11

.

3

1.30
31
16
09
06
- 96
13
08
06
01
09
• 10
01
• 01
03
05
06
07
12
• 06
06
- 07
07
06
08
02
07
- 02
22
12

°s

•

•

•

08
08
13
16
09
01
08
01
06
07
01
01
06
03
06
01
03
02
06
02
06
06
12
09
07
12
02
06
02
00
08

4

c

i

1.30
1*
- 03
3*
12
35
06
20
02
07
- 35
27
- 02
06
- 06
10
- 96
U
• 01
16
• 02
06
• 02
19
23
19
-0 7
09
25
07
- 10
20
22
09
06
03
06
20
16
U
- 06
16
10
- 08
17
17
- 02
00
13
20
U
- 01
06
03
. 00
12
• 11
16
21
21
16

1.33
- 9C
16
06
31
07
15
01
30
01
9S
06
19
00
07
• 00
23
07
13
• 06
01
01
26
16
16
- 20
16
11
09
• 09
20
16
17
09
- 05
13
03
09
07
03
16
05
02
13
17
- 07
- 05
16
10
06
06
16
06
* 02
25
- 1$
17
10
12
16

1.55
- 05
- 01
- 01
23
- 12
- 01
0?
25
• 06
06
07
12
- 15
11
*03
08
01
11
07
°I
- 16
- 09
- 07
09
- 02
- 09
12
00
- 18
- 10
* 02
17
00
- 03
-0 5
- 11
• 03
07
- 08
* 06
16
• 08
- 13
07
05
-0 3
- 05
05
01
- 06
01
06
- 10
U
- 06
- 06
• 06
• 00

•ft* teelnl polnti hart btta oaltttd.

T

l.:;
19
is
Cl
21
- 16
- 06
33
02
00
- 05
16
- 07
12
• 01
11
• 13
05
- 07
25
26
16
• 11
15
21
06
- 06
27
26
12
01
02
06
16
13
01
- 01
20
08
- 08
15
19
- 01
* 05
21
26
05
05
12
* 02
* 07
20
-1 7
16
27
20
22

3

1.93
32
30
15
- 11
31
- IS
26
- 21
- 00
- 03
11
- 20
- 05
- 06
15
- 25
- 02
- 05
06
17
07
- 07
11
16
09
07
15
13
09
- 08
01
00
16
08
02
06
11
03
• 11
13
10
09
* 06
13
20
06
06
06
- 38
• 10
10
- 00
07
16
09
12

9

• jw
**31
36
- 32
*3
:8
31
83
ll
- 03
11
- 13
16
• 02
01
06
- 02
• 06
06
06
19
- 19
Oft
07
16
- 05
12
01
06
- 01
02
05
- 02
08
06
06
07
- 03
02
05
05
02
- 02
09
06
- 01
• 03
13
03
10

or

06
03
06
10
- 01

.1

l.CC
- 02
cs
18
2C
- 07
13
36
17
- 14
os
- 01
16
31
11
8)
06
- 03
• 00
10
08
* 15
- 06
10
- 01
- 03
- 02
06
16
06
01
- 03
02
11
06
• 01
07
15
06
06
09
05
* 06
- 02
06
09
11
05
05
01
07
02
• 06
- 05
06

1.30
93 i.SS
02
33
* IT
16
22 - :b
- 06
26
22 - S3
12
• 03
17 • - 05
25
• 33
07
12
57
* 03
08 - 07
• 07
29
02
06
* 19
05
04
31
24 - 06
16 - 02
- 10
06
30 - 11
30 * 06
05
05
10
- 03
35 - 10
28 * 02
17
05
- 06
13
00
05
10
06
27 - 16
17
05
OT
U
01 - 01
30 - 01
06
11
* 10
13
25 - 02
20 - 05
06
07
. 06
06
26 - 01
16 • 09
21
05
12
02
16
06
09
15
- 10
13
27 - 10
- 17
07
26
06
26 - 07
00
25
29 - 35

li

•*»

i.:c
i* 1 .S0
32 - 36
34
11
06
25
36
11
03 - 10
13
* 93
17
02
10
20
99 • 04
36
26
10 • 01
04
12
09 • 12
09 - 12
06
19
. 08
11
02 - 15
05 - 14
16
12
- Q6 « 07
10 - 16
- OS - 17
02 - 12
16
20
• 01
02
- 06 • 03
06 - 13
09 - 03
06
07
06
07
- 00
00
- 07 * 02
08
13
09 - 06
06 - 07
00
04
07
12
16 - 07
07 • 07
- 00 - 06
01 - 31
13
02
cl
16
12
12
09 • U
00
It
02 - 07
06 - 13
07 - 39
- 01 - 12

15

1.30
• 39
05
- 06
20
- 13
09
. os
ll
- 21
10
- 05
10
17
04
- 14
16
17
02
- 02
19
11
- 93
• 06
- 05
06
12
07
04
- 03
16
05
- 16
16
12
07
- 03
05
26
02
06
00
- 9?
- 09
13
• 09
03

,oc
32 1,00

• 00
16
01
11
- 12
27
- 00
06
- 05
- 05
02
01
- 13
- 03
14
02
- 06
01
04
09
09
- 01
• 09
03
01
05
04
- 01
07
• 01
03
03
03
04
* 09
02
02
- 03
03
10
- 06
37
36
18 - 06
18 - 03
Of

09
- 09
27
06
12
°2
09
09
08
03
U
- 14
06
04
15
- 05
11
31
03
09
- 00
03
00
02
- 02
12
02
01
09
10
08
03
04
07

06

- 10
• 01
05
-1 1
05
- 01
05
- 00
05
11

- 11
13
09
23
• 07
15
02
22
- 07
0Z
• 02
10
. 06
- 06
02
09
- 06
05
06
04
05
02
• 08
- 06
01
05
01
08
10
- 05
01
- 01
12
* 05
- 08
- 07
06
- 00
* 06
- 01
01
17
- 03
02
. 04
03

- 01 - 06 -

i.o e
- 15
21
- 04
14
■ l2
as
* 11
13
29
19
- 13
09
13
03
- 07
22
16
* 91
- 13
04
01
14
11
- 08
09
18
- 07
- 18
13
09
02
- 09
16
04
07
10
OB
04
- C-4
IB
- 07
10
23
17

10

1.59
- 05 1.00
04
11 l.a o
1* * 03
- 15
22
27
07
- 01
06
98
25
13 - 07
90
22 - 03
- 09
21
07
01 . 16
07
12 - IB
01
20 • 10
-0 5
- 08
16 - 13
U
05
IS
07 - 10
05
• 06
24 - 04
* 92
12
03
02
14
07
14
Of
12
05 - 06 - 02
06 - 02
01
- 05
11 - 03
- 03
06
05
01
04
01
• 04
02
13
04
07 - 01
09
03
07
10
06
05
10
11
- 13
01
11
05
01 - 01
06
07 - 00
04
18
- 05
03
- 10
04
07
08
03
- 02
05
°?
07
09 • 06
06 - 01
13
01
01
01
04
- 06
09
01
03
05
06
08
07
- 10
13 - 04
16
07
06

- 06

•

- 12
01

02

1.00
* 12
- 01
- 09
18
16
14
- 04
13
17
05
00
13
13
09
07
- 07
04
16
- 03
C3
04
01
01
- 06
12
06
03
- 06
08
20
06
09
05
07
04
12
- 01
13
16
16
U

1.00
- 01
29
- 04
- 10
- 00
04
- 14
- 09
12
- 01
- 14
- 11
• 02
16
07
02
- 10
- 06
07
• 11
- 05
- 02
09
- 04
• 01
01
09
02
- 11
06
02
* 01
14
14
- 10
07
02
- 06

1,09
04 1.00
06 - 12
- 00 - 13
03 - 07
10
03
- 06 - 0 7
01 - 04
01
°I
02
08
02 - 15
12
- 03
02
00
- 06
05
02 - 01
- 06 - 05
- 03 - 17
* 07 - 11
- 07 - 05
08
- 01 - 08
- 1 1 - 02
06
06
06 - 06
« 01 • 05
07 - 03
00
05
00 - u
07 - 06
09 - 05
03
* 07 • 05
• 01 - 10
07
05
- 03 • 10
07
-0 3
- 0 3 - 10
00 - 16
13

-u

. 08 • 02 - 03 02 - 12

1.00
31
19
- 13
33
28
15
05
50
31
17
- 01
06
06
21
15
06
00
23
14
- 12
16
25
01
03
26
29
12
06
12
12
00
21
- 33
23
31

20
28

1.00
42
- 13
18
68
24
03
39
44
36
00
• 00
u
43
28
02
08
15
10
- 22
32
25
02
* 00
50
IB
09
19
16

a

- 03
35
10
20
50
30
35

1.00
- 09
07
25
41
• 05
18
23
26
06
06
07
24
23
06
03
15
06
• 06
14
*3
06
06
32
U

or
15
18
11
02
18
00
18
22

1.00
- 18
- 14
• 01
11
-1 9
. of
- 02
09
-0 3
02
-0 3
-0 8
OB
- oi
- 04
- 01
16
- 07
- 11
- 05
05
. 69
- 07
- 07
- 00
• 10
02
• 02
- 07
10
- 03
* 06

20 - 10
23 - 02

1.00
38 1.00
11
22
08
07
41
30
41
29
17
29
- 11 - 01
- 00 • 01
05 - 01
16
4J
04
21
- 01 - 2 2
03
°2
ll
15
04
05
- 12 - 19
16
35
20
22
04
00
°2 - 02
18
33
14
09
10
06
06
11
14
U
11
03
. oa - 12
22
29
- so - 09
19
15
40
20
13
25

26

16

H
U)

OO’T 9£ K
OO’I 8J
OD’t

«)
K

U

SI - tt
St - €2

go

81

91
62

95

1C

TT
2T

tt *

00*1 90 -

00
90 90*
n
xo
01 - 21
00’ t 60 *

OO’T

it
60 90
91

90 ’

ST

£0OO’T 60
00‘ t

It

n
n
80
so it
20
9t
ot
OO’t

9t

ot
62
C O ­ OT
It
02
CO
P
02
SC
ot - 00
ot
ll TO
to
10 9 t * 21 - n
ST
Ot
SC
20 - 00
SO
CO - So - 21
to 12
TO - OT
10
ST
60
00
n
00
10
ST
60
91
90
10
eo*t Ot
60
20
St
00’ t 60
60 - CO
OO’T 20
TO
00*1 CO

IT

60
12
10 -

22

IS

ft

92
95
6t

ST
ST
22 62
10 90
51

SO

8T
05

to

to
90

So

90

6r

ST
SC
00

cc

ti

00
oo’t o t
OT
OO’T OC
00*

001
0-*
22
2
0
210
101

62
t
0
0
1
it
OT 1
2
TO
1
2-90
2
0
!°
CO - 0
0
tt
CO - 2
1 CO
to
SO
1
0- ot
0
1
St
n - 2
1
9T
0
1
SO
to CO
90
90
so - 6
6
0- OTC0 Tt02
OO’t 1
11
0OO’T 0
OO'T
0
2
Ot
0
1
12
20CT

22 CS 91
2
0
2 90
ot
01
0 92
OS
20
cs
1
2
It
et - it - SO
cc
92
91
00- Otot ­ 90
00ot
21
00 to0
9t
0 02 CO
tt
OT
60 Ot00 1
1
CO
1
2
10
90
92
tt - 1
Tt
90
0
et
0
1
CO 2
Q
it
1
2
n
so
26
xc
0
2
0
2- 1
to
0
0 0
0- 2
1
0
IT
0
2
1
2
6
0
12 Ot 02
6
0
- so - TO - 2
0OO’T n
20- 02
oo’t 02

90 — ct
CO
91 * It
Co
60
P
s o - It
to - to
CO • 90

10
00
10
0
0
20
10
80
to
2
0*
10
IT
SO 60
So
OO’T

01
OO’t 60
OO’T

£
0- 52 1C
It
TO - tt
000- 5095
22 62
0
09
0
0
It
oo
tt - 2
90 - so
2SC
20- ltC o ­ 1
K
0- tt
to
*
01 0
10
1 SO
CT
N
2
1
Cl
2
1
5 - CO
ot
60
ot
0
0- S2
ST
to - Co - tt
CO - 1
tt
000- 92
1
20SO
00
0 CO
00• 2
0
20so
IT
02
CO - CO - SI
to
n
2
0
- 91 90
ot
0
0 50
52
90
00- SO
0
So
tt - 50
01
0
c o ­ to
ft
90
CO
co - C2
92
10
n
£
2 nOC
02
CO
60

ST
CC
01
OO’I 90
20
CO
OO’T
tl - 90OO’I OC Ot
OO’T tt
OO’t

8

132

20
1
0- Ct
1
0
1
0
tt
1
0
- ot
2
0- 10
00
0
90
0
90
CO
oo
90
0
tt * 0
Ct * 0
0• 91
2
1
OT
TO
0
0
92
90
to OC
to - 2
2
90- 90
60
0
SO
1
to
20 tt
S2
Tt
10 CO
92- 0
0- oo tt 20 so
22 00 10
1
0 Ot OTto
to - 20
K
2
2
2
00
1
2
092
01-

SO
TO
20
SO
TO «t
SO
to*
oo’t

91
60
90

!?

tt
tt
(0
n
oo’t

APPENDIX F
FACTOR MATCH OF O RIG I N A L AND R EV I S E D OCDQ

133

FACTOR MATCH OF ORIGINAL AND REVISED OCDQ
Revised OCDQ Factors
5

6

7

8

.97

.02

.06

.10

.08

.07

.11

.16

2

.04

.92

.11

.08

.04

.11

.14

.32

3

.04

.11

^96-

.04

.01

.13

.19

.12

4

.02

.23

.07

.80

.01

.44

.22

.23

5

.03

.02

.03

.99

.10

.08

.02

6

.22

.24

.10

.56

.01

.41

.33

.55

7

.03

.01

.15

•

.11

.38

J I

8.

.02

.18

.18

.17

,08

.66

.09

Note:

All negative correlation signs have been omitted.

.

.24
.67

tr£l

^

on
o

OCDQ

3

1

o

Original

2

CO
•

Factors

1

APPE N D I X Q
OCDQ SU BTE ST SC ORE S BY IN T E R M E D I A T E DISTRICT*

135

136

O CDQ SUBTEST SCORES BY INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT*
OCDQ Subtest S c o r e s .
P
G
0J
e
0)
w
cd
c
a>
10

01
05
07
11
18
19
23
29
30
3*1
39
i\2
53
56
60
62
63
65
67
68
70
73
75
77
79
80
85
88
93

O
cd
E
•H
P
G
M

CO
CO
(D
G
o
o
1
—1
<

G
O CO
•H *H
P CO
o cd
G X!
tj a
o s
G W
a

52
50
53
54
48
46
56
55
53
42
48
50
50
54
49
45
46
54
45
51
48
49
51
47
47
39
49
43
49

48
53
49
48
48
51
52
47
51
50
46
49
58
53
51
42
46
53
54
49
48
49
48
51
59
52
48
46
54

43
46
55
50
45
50
56
54
62
45
55
48
51
50
45
50
51
47
49
45
56
52
51
45
50
48
4l
56
43

<u

a

o
c
at
G
•o
G
•H
ac

P
T~i
G
a,
to
W

ill*
55
'15
50
116
52
55
1*8
1*1
51
1*9
H6
51*
52
1*5
1*2
1*7
1*6
55
59
52
51
1*3
5l*
58
1*9
51
1*5
52

52
51
45
49
47
55
53
48
46
42
52
49
59
48
49
48
54
54
1*9
46
45
46
51
53
52
55
50
47
50

48
48
56
53
53
46
44
61
55
36
46
51
48
50
50
45
48
41
42
45
53
55
54
49
43
45
47
52
47

4->
CO
G
G
x:
E-I

G
o
•H
p
cd
G
a>
XJ
•H
CO
G
O
O

42
42
56
57
51
47 ■
40
58
52
31
48
54
46
51
54
43
41
44
42
53
57
51
51
43
44
49
40
46
56

46
42
54
54
47
52
49
62
57
36
45
52
50
48
48
48
48
51
44
49
54
49
53
43
47
43
48
41
55

*Note:
Scores are standardized with a mean of 50 and a
standard deviation of 10.

APPENDIX H
PER CENT OF RESPONSES ON SOURCE OF
I N F O R M A T I O N BY E M P L O Y M E N T
POSITION

137

a

..Position

o
• OV

4
Wk.

3 M

j=-

• -4

C o r .

p
(—1

0 ct
C P 00

ro

w
’O
ro
ro
o
3*

1
Director

or h »

VO

*3
<<
t)
ro

2
Supervisor

ro

i-3

<<
X)

3
Diagnos­
tician

X X
0 o
3 oj
ro n

5

03 0
ct
P
^3
H, 0
ct

o
ct
O'

Social

a*

1

**

Xr
00

Xr

VO Ov
**

00
OVOO
■«.

ro ro
VJl 00

88

00

17%

H VJl
O XT

H

-4
Xr

ro

VJ1VJI

ru
ovvo

"a

■

CT\

VJl

00

o

VJl
-4

ov
U)

-4
VO

o

00

-4
ro

u»
VJl

W
00

VO

VJl

00

VJl
-4

VJl

M

ov

VJl
OV

00
--4

-4
VO

00
ov

OV
VO

~4
ro

00
00

IV)
M

OO

00

00

00

-4

00
00

H

H

00

ro

VJl

H
O

15

Xr

-4

-4

ro
VJl

00

VJl

IV)
00

(O
o\

00

00
o

-4

-4

Xr

00

00

o

-4

-4

-4

-tr

H
00

00

oo

Intermediate
Directors

00

Intermediate
Staff

IV)

Xr

00

VJl

Local Special
Ed. Staff

-cr

ov

M
o

Lay
Persons

IV)

IV)

CD

ov
vo

State Department
Consultants

00
H

00
Xr

Ov

OV

vo

Professional
Conventions

IO

IV)

O

-4

00

-0

OV

ov

-4

VJl

ro

-4

—4

-4

Xr

00

-4
H

-4

ON

OO

00

IU

vo

Professional
Journals

ro
ov

ro

ro

H

H

o

ro

-4

00

H
H

H

00

H

OV

H
XT

Intermediate
Newsletters

H

00
00

IV)

H

IU

00

VO

IV)

U)

-Cr

00

00

State Department
Publications

ro
ov

ro
-o

IV)

-4

00

IV)

H

00

VO

IV)
H

IU

ro

00

H

rv>

Xr

rv)

H

vo

OV

H

ro

-a

IU

1—*

-4

>
TJ
•V
H
2
t>
H
X
2
*
1
1

Radio - T.V.
Newspapers

ro
3
o* o

<< ro

3
ro ct
3
•o 0
H ^
0
3 ro
ro to
3 •d
ctQ
3
•3 M
0 ro
CO a
H*
Ct O
H- 3
O
3 ca
9 o
c
4
o
ro
o
>t)
H*
3
0
3
3
P
ct
H"
O
3

H
U)

03

APPENDIX I
PER CENT OP RESP O N S E ON SO U R C E OP
INFORMATION BY I N T E RMEDIATE
DISTRICT

139

i4o

A P P E N D I X I . — Per cent of r e s p o n s e on source of I n f o r m a t i o n
by int e r m e d i a t e district.

rH

n4
District
Code

CD

Pc 0
CD CD
P f-t
C «H

M O

01
05
07
11
18
19
23
29
30
3^1
39
*12
53
56
60
62
63
65
67
68
70
73
75
77
79
80
85
88
93
% of
Total

CD

-P
p
Pp
nj
cd
cd
cd
• H OOTT *H
•H
•H
'd
Td ^ t•oJ
-D O
~
C
CD
fi
S p

5**
13
38
77
91
59
*15
88
58
33
58
52
61
73
6*1
100
6
33
50
53
80
38
60
56
60
23
6*1
57
85

CD 4-4

p cd
G P
M CO

85
88
90
84
91
86
82
100
100
33
74
74
88
73
86
83
67
33
50
53
87
70
80
88
53
54
100
86
80

cd
Oo
CD
h
(D <
4*h
P ,4 h
a<i-i

•H
*h

CO cd
P
rH CO

cd

O •
0 'O
1-3 w

8
13
38
49
27
28
18
0
83
67
37
35
36
18
43
33
28
33
20
27
40
32
20
31
27
23
71
14
50

13.6 18.8 8.2

Responses N * 2190

4*

p

e
rH
iH
p
Pn Ora
T ' cd Oot
co
T cd
cdpp
C
G
cd
G cC
G

e
4J

c

G
CD

CD

CD
cd
p,
O O0
O
*H
P, G
G
•H
<H
cd
h *
h
*h o t t S
CD cd
Cd **H
-T Q P
O
OT p“
O-T rH cd
iH
OT G
OT cd B
G
5
0
CD P
CD CD O G
OT P OT <H > 4-4 Ih <u
O G
O 3 P
cd G
>» P
cd cd P O
U O u o c
O
P m h-D m
r-3 Or co 0

15
0
10
16
18
7
27
0
17
0
0
13
12
0
0
0
17
0
0
7
7
8
0
13
7
0
14
0
0

23
38
24
22
27
21
55
0
25
33
42
26
24
27
36
33
17
33
30
13
20
14
10
25
27
31
36
43
30

.1 5.9

54
92
94
100
81
76
72
62
82
91
90
69
100
73
75
75
92
75
100
67
89
95
74
83
79
85
68
64
79
71
100 100
72
78
100
0
70
70
73
87
93
87
80
70
80
80
50
44
73
87
85
85
86
79
86
71
50
85
18.9 17.5

p o t

h

Ih ed

<D

W

C >
o • ra

P,*H
<d -p
Q cd
<o
o
<h
cd *h
ot p
p— I
3: Cd P
cd p
p

p
p

52; co

8
0
24
22
9
31
18
25
0
0
21
22
15
14
50
0
6
33
0
7
13
16
20
13
20
8
29
14
25

Ph

23
25
14
15
18
17
45
0
8
33
26
9
18
9
50
17
6
33
20
7
40
12
30
6
40
15
14
14
30

E-c
cd
i p,
cd
op,
*h co
"d s
cd cd
pc pc

46
38
43
20
27
45
9
50
17
33
11
39
30
14
36
17
22
33
30
27
47
18
40
13
20
31
43
29
5

4.2 4.4 6.

APPENDIX J
C O M M U N I C A T I O N V A R I A B L E SCORES BY
INT E R M E D I A T E D I S T R I C T

1*11

1*12
AITJiNDIX J . — C omm u n i c a t i o n variab le scores by I nte rme dia te
district.
Co mmu n i c a t i o n Va riables
District
Code
Number

i— 1
at -P
G G
O (D
*H e
to (D
to >
<D H

•H at
a a>
o ^

t—l
at -p
G G
o ID
•H e
to <D
to >
<D rH
tin <Vh o
at o >
-o> G G
CO 0-4 M

PfcH

&
•H

G
O
+»
O

1
CD
■p
•H
r—i

1
ID
-P
•H
G «H
o O
-P a
O o
CD €
G CO
•H o
Q O

to
CD
at O
01
G
to
3
cd (U o
CO

H
at CO
1 G a>
G o o
<D CO G
■P G 3
G a> o
l-H O-i CO

01
05
07
11
18

2.23
2.56
2.38
1.91
2 .27

1. 85
1 .50
2.00
2.47
2.55

.42
.25
•30
.37
.90

6.42
4.00
4.40
8.96
4.90

13
4
12
9
13

6.50
6.56
6.10
6.29
4.80

24
5
10
52
20

19
23
29
30
3*J

2.52
2. 45
2.25
1.92
2.33

2. 00
2.27
1.88
2.83
1.67

.50
.60
.71
.64
1.00

4.46
5.90
5.86
3.09
4.00

7
8
16
6
7

7.82
8 .80
8.71
3.82
4 .00

25
00
40
105
12

39
H2
53
56
60

2. *12
2. 26
2. 27
1.68
2.86

2.11
2. 00
2. 21
1. 91
2. 29

.55
.55
.19
.86
.69

7.17
4.86
5.72
6.71
6.54

7
12
9
5
8

5.61
9.00
5.81
3.66
7.92

25
25
20
5
11

62
63
65
67
68

2.33
1 .83
2. 00
1.90
2 .00

2.50
1.33
1.33
1.50
1.53

.40
.29
1.00
.67
•57

4.00
3.35
5.00
5.78
6.50

6
1
10
9
13

4.00
4 .12
8.00
6.33
4.29

8
10
30
30
30

70
73
75
77
79

2.80
1.96
2.50
1.25
2.40

2.33
1.62
1.70
2.13
1.73

•71
.63
.44
.53
.86

4.14
5.71
3.89
5.20
6.07

6
6
4
4
10

4.29
10.35
5.11
5.40
2.93

22
25
10
4
7

2.23
2. 50
2.14
1.95

1.31
2.86
2.00
2. 45

.83
.62
1. 00
.79

5.67
4.23
4.17
3.68

11
4
7
8

4 .08
5.54
3.33
4.21

35
60
8
12

2.21

2.00

.62

5.19

8.10

5.77

80
85
88
93
Mean for
Total
Population

X!

3 CO
O G

•h a>
G TJ

(D 4-1 o
G O >
•H G G

o
o

a

<4H s
cd co
•p o
CO o

to
to
<D
G

CO
to
<D
G

23.10

APPENDIX K
IN TERMEDIATE SC H O O L D I S T R I C T I N N O V A T I V E N E S S S C A L E

I N T E R M EDIATE S C H O O L D I S T R I C T INNOV A T I V E N E S S S C A L E
Th e f o l l o w i n g is a list of p r o g r a m s , p r a c t i c e s , and
p r o c e d u r e s for i n t e r m e d i a t e school d i s t ricts w h i c h are r e l a ­
tively new.
Indicate the status of e a c h program, practice,
or p r o c e d u r e w i t h i n y o u r i n t e r mediate school d i s t r i c t u s i n g
the f o l l o w i n g scale:
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.

N o t aware of this program, practice, or procedu r e .
A w a r e of~ t h i s program, practice, or procedure.
In trial or p l a n n i n g stage.
F u l l y a d o p t e d or m
use.
A d o p t e d p r e v i o u s l y b u t has b e e n d i s c o n t i n u e d . W h y ?
This program, practice, or p r o c e d u r e is n o t
a pplicable to this inte r m e d i a t e district.
Why?

If y o u h a v e d i s c o n t i n u e d the program, p r a c t i c e or
p r o c e d u r e or feel th at it is not a p p l i c a b l e to y o u r i n t e r ­
m e d i a t e d i strict, p l e a s e indicate why.
C i r c l e the app r o p r i a t e resp o n s e to the left of e a c h i t e m .
P r o g r a m s , Pract i c e s or P r o c e d u r e s .
12

3 4 5 6

1.

I n s t r uctional M a t e r i a l s C e n t e r o p e r a t e d
by the i n t e r mediate school district.

1 2 3 4 5 5

2.

C o o p e r a t i v e inser v i c e t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m
w i t h o t h e r i n t e r mediate school d i s t r i c t s
on a regula r i l y s c h e d u l e d basis.

12

3 4 5 6

3.

C o n s u l t a n t in learning d i s a b i l i t i e s e m p l o y ­
ed b y the int e r m e d i a t e office.

12

3 4 5 6

4.

M o b i l e Instr u c t i o n a l M a t e r i a l s V a n w h i c h
visits c o n s t i t u e n t districts.

1 2 3 4 5 6

5.

C o m p r e h e n s i v e and integr a t e d p l a n for m e e t ­
ing special e d u c a t i o n needs for the en t i r e
i n t e r m e d i a t e d i s t r i c t area.

1 2 3 4 5 6

6.

D e v e l o p m e n t of sp e c i a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l
p r o g r a m s such as r e c o r d e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l
m aterials, films, or p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l s b y
the inte r m e d i a t e office.

12

3 4 5 6

7.

Inservice t r a i n i n g programs h e l d p r i o r to
the reg u l a r school y e a r for i n t e r m e d i a t e
s pecial e d u c a t i o n staff.

12

3 4 5 6

8.

P r e - s c h o o l programs for rube l l a c h i l d r e n
o p e r a t e d or c o n t r a c t e d b y the i n t e r ­
m e d i a t e office.

Page two
1.
2.
3.
* *

Marking Key

Not aware of
4.
Aware of
5.
Trial or planning stage
6.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1 2 3 4 5 6

Adopted - in use.
Discontinued - why?
Not applicable - why?
* * * * * * * * * * *

9. Research consultant employed at least
one-half time by the intermediate office.

12

3 4 5 6

10. Area Vocational Center operated jointly
by special education, vocational educa­
tion and vocational-rehabilitation.

12

3 4 5 6

11. Educational program operated in coopera­
tion with a residential mental health
facility.

12

3 4 5 6

12. Program for low incidence disability area
operated in cooperation with other inter­
mediate school districts.

1 2 3 4 5 6

13. Day Training Program for severely mentally
retarded operated or contracted by inter­
mediate school district in cooperation
w i t h a mental health agency.

12

3 4 5 6

14. Telephone instruction used by intermedi­
ate teacher of homebound and hospitalized.

12

3

45 6

15. Federal projects' coordinator or grantsman
employed at least one-half time b y the
intermediate school district.

12

3

45 6

16. Program for pregnant girls operated or
contracted by intermediate school district.

12

3

45 6

17. Home training program that combines home
visits w i t h parent visits to a center
for the severely handicapped and p r e ­
school handicapped operated or contracted
by the intermediate school district.

12

3

45 6

18. Computerized scheduling of classes for
special education students by the
intermediate school district office.

12

3

45 6

19. Transportation contracted w i t h a private
company or individual.

12

3

45 6

20. Pre-school programs for all severely
handicapped children for early inter­
v ention and diagnostic purpose operated
or contracted by the intermediate school
district.

Marking Key

Page three
1.
2.
3.
* *
12

N o t aware of
4.
A w a r e of
5.
Trial o r p l a n n i n g stage
6.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A d o p t e d - in use.
Discontinued - why?
Not a p p l i c a b l e - w h y ?
* * * * * * * * * * *

3 4 5 6

21.

O r g a n i z e d p a r e n t groups
in p r o g r a m planning.

1 2 3 4 5 6

22.

C e n t r a l ref e r a l serv i c e for all h a n d i ­
c a p p e d c h i l d r e n in the i n t e r m e d i a t e
school district.

1 2 3 4 5 6

23.

C e n t r a l i n f o r m a t i o n and r e c o r d k e e p i n g
s e r v i c e for h a n d i c a p p e d c h i l d r e n for the
i n t e r m e d i a t e district.

1 2 3 4 5 6

24.

I n t e r m e d i a t e funds set a s i d e for d i r e c t
p a y m e n t of expenses of local p e r s o n n e l
w h o at t e n d p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n v e n t i o n s or
conferences.

12

25.

Citizens* a d v i s o r y b o a r d for s p e c i a l
e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s in the i n t e r m e d i a t e
school district.

1 2 3 4 5 6

26.

R e c r u i t m e n t of r e g u l a r teac h e r s to b e c o m e
s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n teachers t h r o u g h an
i n t e r n s h i p p r o g r a m in c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h
a university.

1 2 3 4 5 6

27.

C u r r i c u l u m r e s o u r c e c o n s u l t a n t for
s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n e m p l o y e d b y the
i n t e r m e d i a t e school district.

1 2 3 4 5 6

28.

Art, music, or p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n
c o n s u l t a n t for special e d u c a t i o n e m p l o y ­
ed b y the i n t e r m e d i a t e school district.

3 4 5 6

participating

P l e a s e list any n e w p r o g r a m s , p r a c t i c e s or p r o c e d u r e s
w h i c h are b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d or are in use b y y o u r i n t e r m e d i ­
ate school district.
Indicate the stage of d e v e l o p m e n t for
e a c h i t e m listed.
i.e.
1. a d o p t e d or in use; 2. in trial
or p l a n n i n g stage.
1 2

1 2

APPENDIX L
INNOVATIVENESS SCORES OP INTERMEDIATE
SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS

147

148

A P P E N D I X L.— Innov a t i v e n e s s scores of Inte r m e d i a t e special
e d u c a t i o n departments.
District
Code
Number

Innov a t i v e n e s s
Score

District
Code
Number

01
05
07
11
18

52
61
55
64
46

62
63
65
67
68

59
45
38
51
54

19
23
29
30
34

47
49
58
49
42

70
73
75
77
79

47
60
46
50
60

39
42
53
56
60

51
59
55
55
55

80
85
88
93

50
45
56
49

M e a n for p o p u l a t i o n = 5 2 . 0
S t a n d ard Devia t i o n for Popula t i o n = 6.26

Innovativeness
Score

APPENDIX M
PROGRAMS,

PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

ADOPTED BY LESS THAN 50% OP THE
POPULATION AND DEFINED
AS INNOVATIONS

149

150

APPENDIX M . — Programs, p r a c t i c e s and p r o c e d u r e s ado p t e d by
less than 50% of the p o p u l a t i o n and
defined as Innovations.
ISDIS
Item Number
2
3
4
5

6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
20
21
24
27

28

Per cent of
Adoption
28%
3**%
2*156
4156
38J6
7%
17%

34%

4156
48J6
24%
34%

28%
14%
34%
45%
45%
31%
3%