INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a m icrofilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black mark, it is an indication th a t the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image o f the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being p h o to g ra p h e d the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper le ft hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The m ajority o f users indicate that the textual content is o f greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality made from dissertation. "photographs" Silver prints reproduction could be if essential to the understanding o f the of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by w riting the Order Departm ent, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A Xerox Education Company URBAN, Stanley John, 1943A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF CERTAIN PERSONALITY AND SITUATIONAL VARIABLES TO JOB SATISFACTION IN REGULAR ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AND ELEMENTARY LEVEL TEACHERS OF THE EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED IN SECOND CLASS SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN. [Pages 125-128, "Gordon Personal Profile and Inventory" , copyright by Harcourt, Brace 6 World, Inc., not microfilmed at request of author. Available for consultation at Michigan State University Library]. University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan i i 72-30,057 URBAN, Stanley John, 1943Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1972 Education, special University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan (£) Copyright by STANLEY JOHN URBAN 1972 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF CERTAIN PERSONALITY AND SITUATIONAL VARIABLES TO JOB SATISFACTION IN REGULAR ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AND ELEMENTARY LEVEL TEACHERS OF THE EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED IN SECOND CLASS SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN By Stanley John Urban A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1972 PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have i n d i s t i n c t print. F i l m e d as r ec eive d. University Mi c r o f i l m s , A Xerox Education Company ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF CERTAIN PERSONALITY AND SITUATIONAL VARIABLES TO JOB SATISFACTION IN REGULAR ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AND ELEMENTARY LEVEL TEACHERS OF THE EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED IN SECOND CLASS SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN By Stanley John Urban This study focused on two areas of special edu­ cation administration in which there is a paucity of research. First, the study sought to add to empirical knowledge relating to special education personnel. Second, the study utilized a theoretical model which is widely used in general education and sought to expand its usefulness to special education administration. The study had four, major objectives: 1. To compare the relative level of expressed job satisfaction for regular elementary teachers and elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded. 2. To determine if corresponding personality and situational variables have the same relative importance in predicting job satisfaction across both groups of teachers. Stanley John Urban 3. To ascertain the relative importance of each personality variable and each situational variable in predicting job satisfaction for regular elementary teachers and teachers of the educable mentally retarded. 4. To determine if personality variables when re­ garded as a group and situational variables also regarded as a group are non-redundantly related to job satisfaction in both groups of teachers. The samples selected for the study were from the population of all the female regular education teachers grades one thru six and female teachers of the educable mentally retarded grades one thru six in all the second class school districts in Michigan. One sample was composed of 50 regular education teachers selected randomly and the other sample consisted of 50 special education teachers selected randomly. The data was gathered by means of a mailed question­ naire, composed of five instruments and a biographical data sheet. The five instruments included were the Gordon Personal Profile, the Gordon Personal Inventory, the Bullock Job Satisfaction Sc a l e , the Employee Orientation Scale and the Professional Orientation Scale. The major statistical tools employed in the study were a multivariate F-test, least squares regression analysis, analysis of variance tests for the significance of multiple correlation, a test for homogeneity of regression functions, and a step-wise deletion of Stanley John Urban variables. The decision rule in all statistical tests was to reject the null hypothesis at the .05 level of type I error. The information accumulated through the use of the questionnaire was analyzed, and resulted in the following conclusions. Conclusions 1. Both regular education elementary teachers and elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded are equally satisfied with their respective jobs. 2. The personality characteristics of the two groups appear essentially the same, except that the regular edu­ cation teachers demonstrate a higher level of the trait Cautiousness than is demonstrated by the teachers of the educable mentally retarded. 3. The groups do not differ in the level of expressed Professional Role Orientation or Employee Role Orientation. That is, they do not differ on their conceptions of their obligations as professionals or as employees in an organi­ zational structure. 4. On the situational variables Employee Role Depri­ vation and Professional Role Deprivation the elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded perceive a greater difference between the ideal and actual practice than is perceived by the regular education teachers. Stanley John Urban 5. No variable has a greater importance in one group than in the other in accounting for the variance in job satisfaction. 6. A knowledge of a teacher's scores on the situ­ ational variables measured in this study does not enhance the ability to predict her level of job satisfaction. 7. Three personality variables, Vigor, Personal Relations and Original Thinking are relatively the most important variables in predicting the level of expressed job satisfaction in either group of teachers. Higher scores on these variables are associated with higher satisfaction scores. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express sincere appreciation to the many people who helped make this study possible. Thanks go to the teachers who took time from their busy schedules To Dr. to take part in this study. Charles Henley, chairman of the guidance committee, for his thoughtful assistance and counsel throughout this study and the total doctoral program. A special note of appreciation is extended to Dr. Edwin Keller, committee member, counsel for his invaluable during the present research effort. To Dr. Richard Featherstone and Dr.Gordon Aldridge, committee members, for their assistance and encouragement throughout the doctoral program. To my mother, Mrs. Stanley Urban, for her guidance and support throughout my entire educational career. To my wife's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Tripp, for their encouragement. Above all, the writer acknowledges the patience, support and constant understanding of his wife, Peggy, and his daughters, Suzy and Kate. Their unselfish sacri­ fice made doctoral study and this research possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. Page Introduction .................... . . . . . B a c k g r o u n d .......................... The Getzels-Guba Theory of Educational Administration .............................. Need for the S t u d y .............................. Value of the S t u d y .............................. Purpose of the Study.............................. Research Questions .......................... Definition of T e r m s .............................. Scope and Limitations of the Problem . . . Overview........................................... II. 1 1 3 10 11 12 14 18 20 21 REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ........................... 23 Introduction ................................. 23 Personality-Role Conflict .................... 24 Conflicting Perceptions of Roles................. 29 The Professional-Employee Dilemma . . . . 33 Related Literature From Industrial P s y c h o l o g y ..................................... 35 Studies in Nursing and Social Work, Relating Role Deprivation and Job Satisfaction..................................... 36 S u m m a r y ........................................... 38 III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES .................... 40 Introduction ..................................40 P o p u l a t i o n ........................................ 40 Method of Sample Selection.................... 4 3 Instrumentation .............................. 44 Questionnaire Scoring ....................... 52 Pilot Study.................................... 5 3 Collection of D a t a .............................. 53 Research Design and Analysis of the Data . . 58 S u m m a r y ........................................... 69 Chapter IV. Page ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA . . . 70 Introduction ................................. 70 R e s u l t s ............................................71 S u m m a r y ............................................89 V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS..................92 Introduction ................................. 92 S u m m a r y ............................................92 Conclusions........................................ 97 Discussion and Implications ................ 98 ............. 105 Implications for Further Study B I B L I O G R A P H Y ............................... 108 APPENDICES Appendix A. Letter Sent to Superintendents Requesting Their Co-operation in the S t u d y ................ 114 B. Questionnaire Used in the Study.................... 115 C. Original Form of the Bullock Job Satisfaction Scale..............................................132 D. Cover Letter for Instrument .................... E. Letter to Participants Awarded the Monetary I n c e n t i v e ....................................... 136 F. Effect of Incentives on Role of Return of Mailed Questionnaires ....................... 137 Follow-Up Letter Sent to Subjects with Unlisted Phone Numbers ....................... 139 Letter Accompanying Return of Personality Tests.......................... 140 G. H. 135 I. Formula for Testing Homogeneity of Regression Functions............................. 143 J. Simple Correlations^ Regular Education Teachers. 145 K. Simple Correlations/Special Education Teachers. 146 L. Simple Correlations, Combined Groups of Teachers.......................................... 147 iv LIST OF TABLES Number of Teachers at Selected Levels in School Districts Included in the Study . 41 Return of Mailed Questionnaires by District . 56 Usable Instruments From Returned Questionnaires .............................. 57 Frequency Distribution of Biographical Data for Subjects Included in the Study 59 Information Regarding Education and Fellowship Awards .......................... 60 Summary of Sample Sizes, Means, Standard Deviations, and Multivariate F Tests for Regular Education Teachers and Special Education Teachers on All Variables Measured .................................... 72 Beta Weights and Standard Errors With Job Satisfaction as a Criterion................ 78 Analysis of Regression Regular Education Teachers .................................... 81 Analysis of Regression Special Education Teachers .................................... 81 Analysis of Homogeneity of Regressions on Job Satisfaction .......................... 83 Analysis of Regression Combined Groups of Teachers .................................... 84 Unique Contribution of Each Variable to the Squared Multiple Correlation Coefficient for Predicting Job Satisfaction . 86 Table 13. 14. Page Unique Contribution of Each Set of Personality and Situational Variables to the Squared Multiple Correlation Coefficient for Predicting Job Satisfaction ................. 88 Stepwise Deletion of Variables................. 90 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Model of the Organization as a Social System . 2. Relation of Role Expectations and Personality Needs to Efficient, Effective, and Satisfying Behavior.......................... 5 6 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background During recent years it has been increasingly common for theory to form the central motif for research in edu­ cational administration. Perhaps the most widely used theory in educational administration is the so called "Getzels-Guba Model" of administration as a social process (Lipham, 1964). Carver and Sergiovanni the following importance: (1969) accord it "The Getzels-Guba formulation is particularly noteworthy in that this theory has received the most acclaim and broadest usage in educational admini­ stration" [p. 132]. Educational researchers have found the theory useful in generating questions and predicting the behavior of teachers and administrators 1964; Campbell, 1964). (Walberg, 1970; Lipham, Results of some of the studies which use the Getzels-Guba Model as a theoretical framework are reviewed in Chapter II. It should be noted, however, that there are no studies in special education adminis­ tration which utilize the model as a theoretical framework. 1 2 The writer believes that this is unfortunate since the Getzels-Guba theory of administration may serve as a useful analytical tool for the special education researcher and administrator. Its usefulness to special education could include serving as a point of departure for studies dealing with personnel. It has been nearly a decade since Connor (1963) challenged special education administrators to build a "science" of special education administration. that, He stated "Views . . . (of special education administration) . . . which stress only specific elements must be replaced by considerations that in the context of theories, describe, explain, predict, and economize and assist decisions" [p. 432]. Yet an indepth view of the literature, including the Review of Educational Research Chalfant and Henderson's (1963, 1966, 1969), (196 8) chapter on special edu­ cation administration and a Datrix search by University Microfilms, has revealed that Connor's challenge has gone unheeded. There are no studies in special education administration framed within a social science theory of educational administration. More recently, Willower (1970) renewed Connor's challenge that special education administration "utilize theoretical perspectives which could shed light on the organizational context of special education" [p. 591]. Hopefully, the present study is in keeping with this challenge to build a science of special education 3 administration within the context of theory from general education administration. The Getzels-Guba theory provides a point of departure for the present study. The remainder of this chapter presents the major formulations of the model, the need for the study, the value of the study, the purpose of the study, the research questions, operational definitions and finally, the scope and limitations of the study. The Getzels-Guba Theory of Educational Administration The "Getzels-Guba Model" of administration was first suggested by Getzels (1952, pp. 234-246) and presented as a formal theory of "social behavior and the adminis­ trative process" in Getzels and Guba (1957, pp. 423-441). Since then the model and the concepts associated with it have been elaborated and clarified many times (Getzels & Guba, 1957; Getzels, 1958; Getzels & Thelen, 1960; Getzels, 1963; Getzels, Lipham, & Campbell, 1968). At the outset of this discussion two points will be clarified. First, the term "model" will be used occasionally when referring to the Getzels-Guba theory. This reflects the fact that the authors perceive that their theory of social behavior in an organization is similar in structure to the process of administration. Thus, their theory can be used as a model for analyzing the process of administration. Secondly, it should be borne in mind that 4 the research questions posed in this study are not a test of the propositions inherent in the Getzels-Guba model. Instead the model has been incorporated as background to this study. The theory is based on the assumption that an organization is made up of a system of hierarchical roles. For each role the organization has certain expectations of how the role incumbent— the person occupying a particular role--ought to behave. However, the role incumbent is a human being with unique personality characteristics. Thus, there are two dimensions which interact to determine the behavior of a particular role incumbent: (1) the organizational expec­ tations for that role or the "nomothetic dimension," and (2) the personal dispositions of the person or the "idiographic dimension." Furthermore, the theory states that in any given situation the institutional expectations for the role and the personality of the role incumbent may be congruent or may conflict. When there is congruence, organizational efficiency and individual satisfaction are the result. Conversely, incongruence between the personal dispositions and organizational expectations will result in inefficiency and dissatisfaction. The relationship of the dimensions and variables of the model are represented graphically in Figure 1. 5 Nomothetic Dimension Institution -*• Role ->■ Expectation < i> ii Social' System Social Behavior v Individual ■Personality ■Need-Disposition / Idiographic Dimension Figure 1. Model of the organization as a social system. From Jacob W. Getzels, "Conflict and Role Behavior in the Edu­ cational Setting," in Gage and Charters, 1963, p. 310. In this diagram each term on each of the two axes is the analytic unit for the term preceding it. The social system is defined by its institutions, institutions by constituent roles and each role by expectations. One of the central propositions that can be derived from the model is that personality and situational vari­ ables are the "primary determinants" (Getzels, Lipham, Campbell, 196 8, p. 106) of behavior in an organization. Getzels and Guba (1957) specifically state this conclusion: Indeed, needs and expectations may both be thought of as motives for behavior, the one deriving from personal propensities, the other from institutional requirements. What we call social behavior may be conceived ulti­ mately as deriving from the interaction between the two sets of motives (p. 428). The model as it relates specifically to satis­ faction is depicted in Figure 2. First, effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction will be defined and then their relationship discussed. 6 Role --------------- ► Expectations t \ Satisfaction ir Personality ---- ► Need Disposition Figure 2. 1. Relation of role expectations and personality needs to efficient, effective, and satisfying behavior. From Jacob W. Getzels, and E. G. Guba, "Social Behavior and the Administrative Process," School Review (1957), 433. Effectiveness in terms of the model is a function of the congruence between behavior and the expec­ tations held for the role. 2. Efficiency in terms of the model is a function of the congruence of behavior with need-dispositions. 3. Satisfaction will exist if the needs of the role incumbent and the expectations for the role coincide. "In this case the behavior of the role incumbent would simultaneously meet situational expectations and personal needs" [Getzels & Guba, 1957, p. 435]. The relationship between efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction may be independent. incumbent may, That is "a given role . . . be seen as satisfied without being either effective or efficient" [Getzels & Guba, 1957, p. 433]. Getzels (196 3) acknowledges that the model is an abstraction from reality and an oversimplification. 7 Nevertheless, the intent is that even at its present stage of development the model will provide the administrator with a guide for predicting the consequence of various decisions. As Getzels and Guba (1957) state: The relevance of the model for practice becomes apparent when it is seen that the administrative process inevitably deals with the fulfillment of both normative (or institutional) role expectations and idiographic (or personal) need dispositions while the goals of a particular social system are being achieved. The unique task of administration with respect to staff relations is to integrate the expectations of the institution and the dispositions of the individual in a way that is at once organizationally fruitful and individually satisfying (p. 430). The intent is that in its practical application the model will provide an understanding of relationships between commonly studied problems in administrative behavior. Getzels (1963) notes several of these problems and specifically mentions conflict and satisfaction of the role incumbents. He feels that the problem of conflict is a very important issue which needs "conceptual clarifi­ cation, empirical investigation and practical solution" [p. 310]. He posits a relationship between conflict in the social system and various factors one of which is the satisfaction of the role incumbents. Getzels (1963) lists five immediately identifiable sources of conflict though he is careful to point out "these do not necessarily exhaust the list sources of conflict are as follows: (p. 312). The 8 1. Conflict between cultural values and institutional expectations. 2. Conflict between role expectations and person­ ality dispositions. 3. Conflict between roles and within roles. 4. Conflict deriving from personality disorders. 5. Conflict in the perception of role expectations. Since the present study is concerned with the second and fifth types of conflict listed above further explanation of these will be taken up here. Conflict between role expectations and personality dispositions may be defined as follows: "Discrepancies between patterns of expectations attaching to a role and patterns of need-dispositions characteristic of the incumbents of the role" [Getzels, 1963, p. 313]. As examples of this type of conflict Getzels (196 3) cites the army sargeant with a high need for submission, the administrator with a high need for abasement, and the authoritarian teacher in the permissive school. The individual must choose whether he will fulfill his particular needs or the institutional requirements. If he chooses to fulfill the institutional requirements . . . he is liable to inadequate personal adjustment . . . he is frustrated and dissatisfied (emphasis added). If he chooses to fulfill his needs, he is shortchanging his role (Getzels, 1963, p. 313). 9 Clearly the following basic hypothesis emerges: The greater the conflict between what the teacher is disposed to do and what the expectations are the greater the dissatisfaction. This type of conflict is referred to as self-role conflict and considerable empirical data supporting its existence and studying its effect is cited later. The fifth type of conflict listed "conflict in the perception of role expectations" may be defined as the "actual differences between the views of two or more reference groups as to what is appropriate behavior in a given role" [Getzels, Lipham, & Campbell, 1968, p. 297] or perceived differences between the role incumbent and the reference group. That is the role incumbent may believe his views are different from that of the reference group. Conflict arising from perceptions may be "more subtle and ultimately perhaps more important" Lipham, & Campbell, 1968, p. 307]. [Getzels, This statement is in accord with the general feeling in social psychology. Sargent (1951) has stated, "One does not respond to a situation as defined objectively but rather as he perceives or interprets it. One behaves in a way that is congruent with his subjective definition of the situation" [p. 360]. Therefore, it is appropriate that the present study focus on the congruence or incongruence between what the teacher perceives and her expressed dispositions. 10 Need for the Study This study focuses on two areas of special edu­ cation administration in which there is a paucity of research. First, there is a critical need for research dealing with special education personnel. Blatt (1966) in a recent and comprehensive review of research on special education personnel concluded: A survey of the literature between 1959 and 1965 concerned with the preparation of special education personnel disclosed no experimental studies and few investigations of any kind that could be classified as systematic research. In contrast with the general development of research programs in special education due to tremendously increased federal support . . . the total impact of the findings reported here are somewhat disappointing (p. 159). Consequently, there is a need for studies in personnel if the special education administrator is to have an empirical basis for his decisions. Teachers of the educable mentally retarded were chosen as the focus of this study because they constitute the largest sub group within special education personnel (Mackie, 1966). Moreover, the shortage of teachers of the educable mentally retarded has been and continues to be a chronic problem (Saettler, 1970). It is important to not only recruit new special education teachers but also to retain those currently in the field. Therefore, it is appropriate to investigate the level of job satisfaction among teachers of the educable mentally retarded. It is also important to compare this level of satisfaction to other teaching 11 groups in this case regular education teachers. If the special education teachers express a lower level of job satisfaction than regular elementary teachers, then further study would be indicated as to how this satis­ faction manifests itself in terms of staff turnover, morale, and effectiveness. Secondly, if it is true as Griffiths (1959) has stated that "theory can provide guidance for the adminis­ trator when he needs to act" then special education administration must begin to systematically examine the various theories used in general education administration. Willower (1970) noted that this has not been the case: . . . special education administration . . . is untouched by concerns with organizational theory, social systems theory, bureaucratization and so on that have become so salient in the literature of edu­ cational administration, business administration and public administration. . . . These are notions that just have not been utilized in any appreciable sense in the study of special edu­ cation and its organizational context. The questions that can be raised are legion and they betoken a fresh area for inquiry in special education (p. 591). Accordingly, this study will utilize a theoretical model which is widely used in general education and seek to expand its usefulness to special education administration. Value of the Study This study has implications for special education administrators, college teachers preparing elementary teachers of the educable mentally retarded and researchers in special education administration. 12 First, it is important for special education administrators to know if a specific combination of variables is associated with teacher job satisfaction. This knowledge will provide a better understanding of possible sources of dissatisfaction and provide a basis upon which to plan a strategy for ameliorating variables predictive of low teacher satisfaction. Second, a knowledge of personality traits of practicing teachers of the educable mentally retarded is important to college teachers preparing such personnel. The identification of personality traits associated with satisfaction in teaching educable mentally retarded children may help identify those persons suited to this type of work. Moreover, if situational variables are related to level of job satisfaction, college teachers may find it worthwhile to make certain that potential teachers have an accurate conception of their future role. Third, the study has implications for researchers. If it can be demonstrated that the Getzels-Guba theory of administration is a useful framework for formulating research questions and interpreting results many useful studies could result. Purpose of the Study Broadly stated, the purpose of this study is to compare regular education elementary teachers and elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded on variables related to job satisfaction. The specific objectives of the study are as follows: 1. To compare the relative level of expressed job satisfaction for regular elementary teachers and elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded. 2. To determine if regular elementary teachers and teachers of the educable mentally retarded differ on any of the 12 personality, role orientation and situational variables measured. 3. To ascertain the relative importance of each personality variable and each situational variable in predicting job satisfaction for regular ele­ mentary teachers and teachers of the educable mentally retarded. 4. To determine if corresponding variables have the same relative importance in predicting job satisfaction for both regular elementary teachers and teachers of the educable mentally retarded. 5. To determine if personality variables when regarded as a group and situational variables also regarded as a group are non-redundantly 14 related to job satisfaction for regular elementary teachers and for teachers of the educable mentally retarded. 6. To provide an analysis of the findings in terms of new insights discovered regarding differences between the regular elementary teachers and the teachers of the educable mentally retarded and implications they may have for special education administrators and college teachers. Research Questions To accomplish the general purposes of this study, the data obtained is used to answer the following research questions. A differential relationship was not found between personality and situational variables to job satisfaction across the two group of teachers. Since this occurred, research questions 7, 8, and 9 are asked for the combined groups of teachers. Question l .--Do teachers of elementary educable mentally retarded children differ from teachers of regular elementary children on job satisfaction as measured by the Bullock Job Satisfaction Scale? Question 2 .--Is there a difference between teachers of regular elementary children and teachers of educable mentally retarded children on any of the following vari­ ables. 15 Personality Variables 1. Ascendancy 2. Responsibility 3. Emotional Stability Situational Variables 9. Employee Role Deprivation 10. Professional Role Deprivation 4. Sociability 5. Cautiousness Role Orientation Variables 6. Original Thinking 7. Personal Relations 11. Employee Role Orientation 8. Vigor 12. Professional Role Orientation Question 3 .— What is the linear regression equation for predicting job satisfaction for teachers of regular elementary children using the following personality and situational variables? Personality Variables 1. Ascendancy 2. Responsibility 3. Emotional Stability 4. Sociability 5. Cautiousness 6. Original Thinking 7. Personal Relations 8. Vigor Situational Variables 9. Employee Role Deprivation 10. Professional Role Deprivation 16 Question 4 .— What is the linear regression equation for predicting job satisfaction for elementary level teachers of educable mentally retarded children using the following personality and situational variables? Personality Variables Situational Variables 1. Ascendancy 9. Employee Role Deprivation 2. Responsibility 10. Professional Role 3. Emotional Stability Deprivation 4. Sociability 5. Cautiousness 6. Original Thinking 7. Personal Relations 8. Vigor Question 5 .— Is the amount of variance in job satisfaction scores attributable to personality and situational variables significant in both regular edu­ cation elementary teachers and elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded? Question 6 .— Is there a differential relationship of the following personality and situational variables to the expressed level of job satisfaction across the two groups of teachers. 17 Situational Variables Personality Variables 1. Ascendancy 2. Responsibility 3. Emotional Stability 9. Employee Role Deprivation 10. Professional Role Deprivation 4. Sociability 5. Cautiousness 6. Original Thinking 7. Personal Relations 8. Vigor Question 7 .— What is the unique contribution of each of the following personality and situational variables in accounting for the variance in job satisfaction scores in the combined groups of teachers? Situational "Variables Personality Variables 1. Ascendancy 2. Responsibility 9. Employee Role Deprivation 10. Professional Role 3. Emotional Stability Deprivation 4. Sociability 5. Cautiousness 6. Original Thinking 7. Personal Relations 8. Vigor Question 8 .— What is the unique contribution of each set of personality variables (i.e., ascendancy, 18 responsibility, emotional stability, sociability, cautiousness, original thinking, personal relations, and vigor) and each set of situational variables (i.e., employee role deprivation and professional role depri­ vation) in accounting for the variance in job satisfaction scores for the combined groups of teachers. Question 9 .--What is the smallest set of person­ ality and situational variables that can be used to predict job satisfaction for the combined groups of teachers without significantly decreasing the squared multiple correlation that results from using the full set of ten predictor variables? Definition of Terms The following list of definitions is derived primarily from the writings of Corwin (1963), Kramer (1968), and Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell (1968). When necessary, a term may have a specialized definition: Personality trait is a reasonably consistent characteristic of a person that determines his unique adjustment to his environment. Personal Inventory Profile traits. In this study the Gordon (Gordon, 196 3a) and the Gordon Personal (Gordon, 1963b) will be used to measure personality 19 Professional role orientation is an index of a teacher's conceptions of her obligations as measured by the following sub-tests of the "professional role orien­ tation scale" (Corwin, 1970): orientation to students, orientation to the profession and professional colleagues, a belief that competence is based on knowledge and a belief that teachers should have decision making authority. Professional role deprivation is the difference between a teacher's commitment to professional ideals as expressed on the "professional role orientation scale" (Corwin, 1970) and her expressed perception of the extent to which these ideals are actually fulfilled in practice. Employee role orientation is an index of a teacher's conceptions of her obligations as an employee in an organization measured by the following sub-tests of the "employee role orientation scale" (Corwin, 1970): loyalty to the administration, loyalty to the organization, a belief that teaching competence is based on experience, the endorsement of treating personnel interchangeably, endorsement of standardization, emphasis on rules and procedures and loyalty to the public. Employee role deprivation is the difference between a teacher's conception of her obligations as an employee as expressed on the "employee role orientation scale" 20 (Corwin, 1970) and her expressed perception of the extent to which this conception is fulfilled in practice. Job satisfaction is the overall contentment a staff member expresses with his job. In this study job satisfaction will be measured by the Bullock Job Satis­ faction Scale (Bullock, 1956). Scope and Limitations of the Problem There are certain limitations which must be taken into account when generalizing the results of this study. These limitations have their source in the selection of the sample and in the methods used in the study. The population from which the samples for this study were chosen places some restriction on the generalizibility of the results. The two groups that were compared were drawn from a population of teachers employed in three large school districts in Michigan. The districts compose all the second class school districts in Michigan. These districts were chosen because they have welldeveloped comprehensive programs for the educable mentally retarded. Also, they appear to be representative of similar districts located in medium size industrial cities with a population of 100,000 to 200,000. Finally, these districts were chosen because of a feasibility factor; that is, the follow-up procedure used for this study necessitated that each subject be contacted personally. In terms of generalizibility this study may be characterized 21 as a study of teachers employed in large industrialized cities. The Cornfield-Tukey argument for inference supports such a generalization (Cornfield-Tukey, 1956). Also, the study was delimited to female regular education teachers grades one through six and female teachers of the educable mentally retarded grades one through six. Males were excluded from the study because there were too few (slightly less than 10%) to investigate the effect of sex on the responses of each group of teachers. Thus sex had it not been eliminated would have been a possible confounding variable. Another source of limitation, inherent in the correlational techniques employed in the study is that statements of causal relationships among the variables of interest must be made with extreme caution. Stanley Cambell and (196 3) expressed this when they stated: . . . correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, but a causal law of the type producing mean differences in experiments does imply correlation. . . . In this sense, the relatively inexpensive correlational approach can provide a preliminary survey of hypotheses, and those which survive this can then be checked through the more expensive experimental manipulation" (p. 64). Overview Studies related to this proposal are divided into the categories, personality-role conflict, conflicting perceptions of roles, findings from industrial psychology, the professional-employee dilemma, findings from nursing and social work, all of which are reviewed in Chapter II. 22 Following a review of the literature, the method­ ology and procedures to be used in the study are presented in Chapter III. This explanation includes a description of the population, instrumentation, method of sample selection, and method of data analysis. The data is analyzed and the research findings are interpreted in Chapter IV. A summary of the research findings, conclusions based on the analysis and recommendations for further research are included in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The present study, while not a replication of any previous research, has nevertheless evolved from the experiences of earlier researchers concerned with pre­ dicting the job satisfaction of teachers within the framework of the Getzels-Guba Theory. This review of past research experiences relating to the prediction of satisfaction in teachers has five parts. The first provides a short overview of studies relating personality variables to satisfaction in teaching and presents an assessment of the status research method­ ology dealing with this problem. The second reviews the literature that deals with conflicts in the perceptions of roles. In this section, important studies that show a relationship between conflicts in the perceptions of roles and job satisfaction are summarized. The third focuses on an instrument which measures the difference a teacher perceives between the ideal conception of her role and the way her role is actually practiced. 23 This difference is 24 called a role deprivation and for the purposes of the present study is regarded as a conflict in the perception of roles. The fourth section of the review presents evidence from the field of industrial psychology that both personality and situational variables are important in predicting the level of expressed job satisfaction. Finally, the fifth part focuses on findings in occupational groups similar to teachers which indicate that perceived role deprivation is related to job satisfaction. Personality-Role Conflict In the Getzels-Guba Theory personality-role conflict refers to discrepancies between patterns of expectations attaching to a given role and patterns of personality of the role incumbent. This discrepancy is important to the administrator since "one of his major functions is to integrate role and personality in the fulfillment of organizational goals" Campbell, 1968, p. 218]. [Getzels, Lipham, & There is, however, a serious problem in studying personality and role relationships. No validated concepts exist for expressing and relating role variables and personality variables in comparable terms. Studies based on this model which seek to show a relationship between these variables have generally been forced to use one of the following research strategies; first, a strategy which will be referred to as the "role definition method"; and, second, a strategy which may be called the "personality assessment method" Lipham, & Campbell, 1968, p. 220). (Getzels, The former measures the extent to which the teachers dispositions for certain behaviors are congruent with their roles as prescribed by the principal or any other superior in the authority system of the school; the latter, correlates personality variables with some criterion such as satisfaction or effectiveness and in this way identifies the personality traits compatible with a certain role. Campbell (1958) reported a study which used the role-definition strategy to examine personality-role conflicts in teachers. He assumed that certain expec­ tations are attached to the role of the teacher and that in a given school the principal will define at least one set of legitimate expectations for the role. Campbell had 15 principals complete a 6 0-item instrument containing statements describing how the principal expected teachers to behave. The same instrument was given to 284 teachers, but each teacher was asked to respond in terms of his own dispositions. Thus conflict was defined by the amount of agreement or disagreement between the principals expec­ tations and the teachers expressed dispositions. Campbell tested several hypotheses relating to effectiveness, competence and confidence in leadership. However, the hypothesis salient to the present study was that teachers with a low degree of role-personality conflict would rate themselves higher in teaching satisfaction than would 26 teachers with a high degree of role-personality conflict. The hypothesis was supported, teachers low in rolepersonality conflict (i.e., a low amount of incongruence between the principal's expectations and the teacher's dispositions) expressed greater satisfaction with teaching than teachers high in role-personality conflict. Campbell made the assumption that personality traits influenced the dispositions expressed by the teachers. Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell (1968) note that his method "useful as it was for his purpose, is by no means a measure of teacher personality dispositions in any ultimate sense" (p. 247]. Campbell's findings are in accord with other studies of teacher satisfaction using similar research methodology. (1963), and Chase Havens (1963), Griffin (1951) all found that degree of role- personality conflict were correlated with satisfaction in teaching. The personality-assessment method was applied by Lipham (Getzels, Lipham, & Campbell, 1968) to study personality-role conflict. He had a superintendent and four assistant superintendents rank 84 principals with whom they had direct contact on effectiveness. On the basis of previous research and an a priori conceptual framework Lipham hypothesized that effective principals would score higher than ineffective principals on the following personality variables: activity drive, 27 achievement drive, social ability, feelings of security, and emotional stability. Personality tests revealed that effective principals did indeed score significantly higher on "Social Ability," "Emotional Control," "Feelings of Security and Activity Drive," as measured by the Sentence Completion T e s t . Lipham interpreted his findings in terms of the Getzels-Guba Theory and concluded the following: When the expectations for an administrator in this case a principal, are that he exert himself energetically, strive for achievement, relate successfully to other people and view the future with confidence, individuals having a basic personality structure characterized by these traits will suffer less strain in fulfilling the administrative role and therefore will be more efficient than those whose traits are in conflict with the role expectations. Walberg (1970) recently reviewed the literature dealing with personality-role conflicts. On the basis of his review he concluded "that the personality needs of some teachers to be friendly to children conflicts with the bureaucratic institutional role of the teacher" [p. 414]. •xs Walberg feels that this conflict results in less satisfaction and deflates the professional self image of the teacher. He cites numerous studies to support his conclusion. In a unique study of teachers of the emotionally disturbed, Bruno (1968) reported findings which may be 28 interpreted as indicative of personality-role conflict. The purpose of his study was: . . . to explore differences between teachers of the emotionally disturbed who have chosen to remain in the field and who feel comfortable in this role, with teachers who have left the field or plan to leave the field because they are not comfortable in this role (p. 3) . As to why some people remain in the field and others drop out, Bruno makes the assumption that "the teachers person­ ality structure must play a crucial role" [p. 3]. He therefore, chose to study differences between experimentals (those who dropped out of teaching the emotionally dis­ turbed) and controls (those who remained in the field) on needs, values, and attitudes. surprising picture" His findings "present a [p. 85]: . . . the control group could best be described as power-oriented, autonomous people who had high manifest needs for dominance and succorance and who resembled social science teachers in terms of their interests. The experimental group could best be described as nurturing people with a social service orientation, and who resembled psychologists in terms of their orientations (p. 85). Bruno indicates that the drop outs are more like the ideal teacher of the emotionally disturbed as described in the literature than those who remain in the field. If the drop outs were to be encouraged to remain, it might be that the demands of the role would be incompatible with their personality traits. flexibility" Bruno urges "greater freedom and [p. 106] in programs for emotionally dis­ turbed to encourage these people. Clearly Bruno's 29 findings may be interpreted in terms of a personality-role conflict. That is, the expectations for the job were incongruent with the personality structure of those who dropped out of teaching the emotionally disturbed. With the exception of Bruno, there are no studies of special education personnel which can be interpreted in terms of personality-role conflict. Also, there are only a few studies which describe the personality character­ istics of special education teachers. Such studies are necessary to at least form the basis for research on personality-role conflict in special education teachers. The few studies that do describe the personality traits of special education teachers lack a comparative design; thus as Jones (Meisgier & King, 1970) points out: . . . while a given group of traits may be seen as characteristic of teachers of a given exceptionality, they may be in reality no different than those possessed by persons employed in a wide variety of seemingly diverse occupations (p. 557). Thus basic exploratory information regarding the person­ ality traits of special education teachers could not be included in this section of the review. Conflicting Perceptions of Roles This type of conflict occurs when the role in­ cumbents perception of his role does not coincide with that defined by other experienced teachers or the adminis­ trative hierarchy. "When the perception of expectations overlap the role incumbent feels satisfied conversely if his perception does not overlap he will feel dissatisfied" [Getzels, 1963, p. 318). There is considerable evidence in the literature exploring conflict in role perception and the consequences of such conflicts. The most perti­ nent of these studies and their implications for the present study will be discussed. It is interesting to compare Jackson's and Muscovici1s (1963) research which found that education students have a definite conception of their future role and a study by Biddle, Twyman, and Rankin (1962) which questioned the assumption that prospective teachers had role conceptions similar to experienced teachers. Twyman, and Rankin asked the question, Biddle, "Do young persons choosing a career in teaching have an adequate picture of the role of their profession" [p. 192]? To describe the role of the teacher, 50 content areas for teacher behavior were selected from pilot studies; examples of some of the items follow here: Watching pupils during study periods Co-operating with the principal of the school Leaving the room during a classroom test Smoking out of school Speaking out at a PTA meeting Reading own books during study period (p. 197). The items could be ranked on a 5 point scale ranging from the teacher doing "a great deal of" to "little or none" of the behavior involved. Significant differences existed between education students and teachers in role held for the teaching profession. 31 When viewed collectively these two studies indicate that student teachers have an ideal image of their future role and that this image is incongruent with the role as it is actually performed in practice. Based on these findings it can be hypothesized that a sense of role deprivation will exist in some teachers. Furthermore, if such a deprivation exists its effects on satisfaction should be explored. Bidwell (1957) noted two types of role conflict, (1) deprivation of expectations in actual practice, and (2) incongruence of expectations between teachers and administrators. Bidwell's study adopted the point of view that the administrative organization of a school system is a system of roles with the faculty being a legitimate alter group which (1) defines through expec­ tations the behavior of the school's administrators, and (2) perceives and evaluates the behavior of these adminis­ trators. Bidwell expected that "congruence of expectations and perceptions of administrative behavior would be accompanied by an expression of satisfaction" [p. 165] while divergence would lead to statements of dissatis­ faction with the teaching situation. To determine whether deprivation of expectations led to dissatisfaction, Bidwell tested the following hypotheses: 32 1. Convergence of teachers' role expectations for the administrator with the perceptions of his behavior will be accompanied by an expression of satisfaction by these teachers with the total teaching situation. 2. Divergence of teachers' role expectations for the administrator with the perceptions of his behavior will be accompanied by an expression of dissatisfaction by these teachers with the total teaching situation (p. 165). Both of these hypotheses were supported. Bidwell states that these findings have important implications for the study of organization. In his conclusion he notes: When an individual enters an organization . . . he brings with him some behavior-determining elements of the culture of his professional group. In the organization he encounters an organizationally specific culture which may reinforce the occupational culture or which will more likely conflict with some or all of its elements (p. 178). Thus Bidwell's study indicates that conflict which may result from deprivation between a conception of the ideal and actual practice can lead to lowered satisfaction. Ferneau (1954) studied the interaction of adminis­ trators and consultants. He designed an instrument through which varying expectations for the consultant role could be expressed. The instrument was administered to 180 administrators who received consultant service and to 46 consultants who provided service to the administrators. Each administrator and each consultant were asked to evaluate the outcome of the consultation. This made it possible to compare the overlap in the perception of expectations for the consultant role held by the consultant and the administrator with whom he worked. Also, it was 33 possible to analyze the effect of congruence or dis­ crepancy on satisfaction with the interaction. The results were as follows: When the adminis­ trator and the consultant agreed on expectations, the outcome was rated favorable; conversely, when they disagreed, the outcome was rated unfavorably. To recapitulate, the basic hypotheses of the research studies cited here is that when perceptions of expectations coincide, the participants in the relationship feel satisfied with the work achieved. When the p e r ­ ceptions of the expectations do not overlap, the partici­ pants feel dissatisfied. The Professional-Employee Dilemma Ronald Corwin has conducted an extensive and methodologically sound study w h i c h .examined the correlates of conflict experienced by teachers. divided into two phases: The study was the first phase (Corwin, 196 3) was concerned with the development of "instrumentation for the major variables to be studied" phase [p. 1]; the second (Corwin, 1965a) utilized these instruments to study the relationship of various variables to staff conflicts. Corwin has extensively published his theoretical position and his findings 1970). (Corwin, 1965b; Corwin, 1967; Corwin, The development of the Professional Role Orien­ tation Scale, the Employee Role Orientation Scale, and and their "deprivation" components are utilized in the 34 present study and will be discussed in Chapter III. Corwin's findings using these instruments will be discussed here. The author investigated two types of staff conflict: 1. 2. Episodic and recurrent friction incidents which . . . occurred among teachers and between teachers and their supervisors. Conflicts in conceptions of teachers' professional and employee roles held by teachers in different positions and administrators . . . (p. 2). It is useful background to present Corwin's theoretical framework. He feels the teacher comes to her job with two sets of expectations: (1) a set of expec­ tations for her role as an employee, and (2) a set of expectations for her role as a professional. Not only can these divergent obligations conflict but the extent to which the teacher's expectations are not met can lead to a sense of deprivation. Corwin (1970) summarizes his framework in the statements which follow here: . . . there is a fundamental contradiction between the subordinate status of teachers in the system and their rights and obligations as professional persons responsible for improving the quality of education. Their professional responsibilities require a great deal of latitude for coping with the students' problems and room to exercise discretion and initiative in interpreting and altering school policy. The pro­ fessional person is primarily responsible to his colleagues, who evaluate him and determine the standards of his conduct. And his professional reputation depends upon his special knowledge which must be constantly demonstrated, no matter what other official recognition he may have achieved. These principales are inconsistent with . . . standardized requirements, a centralized decision making system, close supervision, and task oriented rules under which schools operate (p. 42). 35 Corwin studied the relationship between scores obtained on the Employee Role Orientation Scale/ the Professional Role Orientation Scale, the amount of depri­ vation expressed on each scale, and the conflict rates expressed by the teachers. Measures of conflict were such things as number of heated discussions with the principal, level of tension between the teacher and the principal, number of disagreements between faculty members. The author reported that rates of conflict were significantly correlated for subjects who held a high professional and low employee orientation. He also reported that rate of reported conflict with administration was significantly correlated with degree of perceived professional role deprivation. However, degree of employee role deprivation was not significantly associated with conflict rates. Corwin did not study the relationship between perceived deprivation and satisfaction in either the employee role or professional role scale. The present study will utilize these instruments to study the relation­ ship between perceived deprivation and expressed satis­ faction with teaching. Related Literature From Industrial Psychology From the earliest period of behavioral research in industry (Mayo, 192 3) both situational and psychological factors have been considered relevant in explaining the behavior of people at work. 36 Vroom (1964) in a review of the literature on the "determinants of job satisfaction" [p. 99] reached the following conclusion regarding the research up to that tim e : Job satisfaction must be assumed to be the result of the operation of both situational and personality variables. It is only through the simultaneous study of these two sets of factors that the complex nature of their interactions can be revealed. Very few investigators have attempted to deal with differences among work roles and among individuals in the same study. However, the results of those studies in which this has been done are promising and indicate the fruitfulness of this approach (p. 173-174). Similar emphases can be found in the contemporary research of Lawler and Hackman (1970) . (1971), Hall and Lawler It should be noted that no studies in industrial psychology have overcome the methodological problem mentioned earlier; that is, measuring personality and role variables in comparable terms. Nevertheless, studies from the field of industrial psychology (Vroom, 1960; Tannen- baum, 1958; Lawrence & Turner, 1965) indicate that person­ ality traits interact with situational variables to effect the level of satisfaction a person expressed with his job. Studies in Nursing and Social W o r k , Relating Role Deprivation and Job Satisfaction The conflicts experienced by professionals employed in bureaucracies are not unique to teachers. Role conception and role deprivation have been the subject of studies in many occupational groups (Kornhauser & 37 Hagstrom, 1962; Wilensky, 1956; Ben-David, 1958; Etizioni, 196 9). Especially noteworthy are studies dealing with nursing and social work because these two occupational groups are similar to teaching (Etzioni, 1969); that is, they are altrustic, service oriented and their members generally practice in large bureaucratic organized insti­ tutions. Moreover, Rosenberg (1957) has shown that nursing, social work, and teaching attract persons with similar personality patterns. Several studies in nursing Bene and Bennis Mayro and Lasky (1959), and Kramer (1959), (1966, 1968, 1970) have found a correlation between job satisfaction and perceived role deprivation. Kramer (196 8) found that perceived role deprivation was greatest for nurses with less than one year of experience. She felt this indicated that "the nurses role as learned by students may reflect the ideal image" [p. 115] which may be dysfunctional in practice. Bene and Bennis (1959) had nurses rate 17 questions in terms of the ideal nurse. From these responses they inferred her ideal image of her occupation. In addition to what nurses believed they should do in specific situ­ ations, they were asked to go back and indicate how they behaved in actual situations. The general hypothesis "that the more discrepancy the less satisfaction" [p. 178] was supported. A study by Scott (Etzioni, 1969) found a similar conflict between the social workers ideal concept of their 38 profession and actual practice. Scott concluded that idealized views of the function of the agency caused the professionally oriented workers to express dissatisfaction and that there was a conflict between the way workers idealized their role and actual practice. Summary This chapter briefly summarized studies of satis­ faction with teaching, some of which were formulated and interpreted within the Getzels-Guba Theory. One of the main characteristics of these studies was that they related one independent variable at a time to the criterion of job satisfaction. The studies have found personality variables or situational variables such as conflicts in the perception of role to be useful in predicting the criterion. The model specifically states that satisfaction is a function of the joint effect of personality and situational variables and Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell (1968) have recently indicated that multi- variable methods are needed to test the propositions which can be derived from the model. No multivariable studies of satisfaction with teaching are reported in the literature. Research studies so far, predicting job satis­ faction from personality variables and situational variables, which are operationalized as conflicting perceptions of roles, reported evidence in separate 39 studies to show that both are correlated with job satis­ faction. A need was apparent to simultaneously relate those variables in order to determine if the effect is joint or independent. Literature also indicated a paucity of studies of special education administration, specifically problems dealing with personnel, framed within a comparative design. Studies from such diverse fields as industrial psychology, nursing, and social work indicate that the relationships expressed in the Getzels-Guba Theory and the variables chosen for this study should result in useful findings. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Introduction In this chapter, the population for the study is defined; the method used in selecting a sample from the population is described; the instrumentation used and the procedures for collection of the data are discussed; and procedures used in analyzing the data are explained. Population The population for the study consisted of all the female teachers of the educable mentally retarded grades one through six and all the female regular education teachers grades one through six from the three second class school districts in Michigan. Selected characteristics of staffing patterns for each district are presented in Table 1. Hereinafter, the districts will be referred to as District A, District B, and District C. 40 41 TABLE 1 Number of Teachers at Selected Levels in School Districts Included in the Studya District A District B District C Number of teachers pre-kindergarten (including special education) 0 29 14 Number of teachers kindergarten (including special education) 59 70 69 Number of teachers grades 1-6 (including special education) 672 819 640 Number of teachers secondary (including special education) 617 788 642 Number of teachers special education (all levels) 168 109 86 a Source of data: 1971. Fourth Friday Membership Count, 42 The city in which District A is located has a total population of 131,500’'" of which 11,500 are members of minority groups Report, 1971). (1970 Census of Population: Advance Approximately 26% of the city's work force is employed in some type of hourly manufacturing work (The State Journal, 1972). The school district has a total of 33,060 pupils including 1,306 enrolled in all types of special education classes (Fourth Friday Member­ ship Count, 1971). District B is located in a city which has a total population of 193,000 of which 55,000 are minority group members 1971). (1970 Census of Population: Advance Report, Nearly 44% of the city's work force is employed in hourly manufacturing work (The State Journal, 1972). There are 45,350 pupils enrolled in the schools and this includes 1,306 special education students (Fourth Friday Membership Count, 1971). Finally, District C is located in a city which has a population of 198,000 which includes 23,000 persons who are members of minority groups Advance Report, 1971). (1970 Census of Population: Approximately 33% of this city's work force is employed in hourly manufacturing work State Journal, 1972). (The There 34,148 pupils of which 1,238 "'"Population figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred. 43 are special education pupils (Fourth Friday Membership Count, 1971). Method of Sample Selection Selection of the sample was accomplished in the manner described h e r e : 1. On January 12, 1972 a letter (Appendix A) was mailed to the superintendents of Districts A, B, and C. The purpose of the letter was to briefly explain the objectives of the study and to ask for their help in obtaining a list of all the regular education teachers grades one through six, all the teachers of the educable mentally retarded grades one through six, and the home addresses of these teachers. 2. In all cases the original letter of inquiry was referred to the director of research and he was instructed to make a determination as to whether or not the district would co-operate in the study. Every district contacted agreed to participate in the study and in each a current staff directory was provided. 3. The female regular education teachers grades one through six and the female teachers of the educable mentally retarded grades one through six from all 44 three districts were combined to form two pools of 1,733 and 90 teachers, respectively. 4. Finally, 50 subjects were chosen from each pool using a table of random digits (Armore, 1966). Fifty was the minimum number of subjects required from each group of teachers in order to conduct the statistical analyses for the study (McNemar, 1962). Instrumentation The basic purpose of the questionnaire was to gather data on the special education teachers and regular education teachers regarding personality variables, role orientation, perceived role deprivation, and job satis­ faction. To accomplish this goal five instruments yielding scores on 13 distinct variables plus a biographical data sheet (Appendix B) were combined to form the questionnaire. The instruments used to compose the questionnaire and the variables they measure follow here. To compare the teachers of the educable mentally retarded and the regular education teachers on personality variables the Gordon Personal Profile Personal Inventory (196 3) and the Gordon (1963) were utilized. These are com­ panion instruments which when used together provide measures of eight personality traits. (Appendix B, p. The Personal Profile 115) has 18 questions and yields measures of the following traits (Gordon, 1963): 45 1. 2. 3. 4. Ascendancy— Those individuals who are verbally ascendant, who adopt an active role in the group, who are self-assured and assertive in relation­ ships with others, and who tend to make independent decisions, score high on this Scale. Those who play a passive role in the group, who listen rather than talk, who lack self-confidence, who let others take the lead, and who tend to be overly dependent on others for advice, normally make low scores. Responsibility— Individuals who are able to stick to any job assigned them, who are persevering and determined, and who can be relied on, score high on this Scale. Individuals who are unable to stick to tasks that do not interest them, and who tend to be flighty or irresponsible, usually make low scores. Emotional Stability--High scores on this Scale are generally made by individuals who are well-balanced, emotionally stable, and relatively free from anxieties and nervous tension. Low scores are associated with excessive anxiety, hypersensitivity, nervousness, and low frustration tolerance. Gener­ ally, a very low score reflects poor emotional balance. Sociability— High scores are made by individuals who like to be with and work with p e ople, and who are gregarious and sociable. Low scores reflect a lack of gregariousness, a general restriction in social contacts, and in the extreme, an actual avoidance of social relationships (p. 3). The companion instrument to the Profile the Gordon Personal Inventory (Appendix B, p. 115) has 20 questions and measures the following traits 1. 2. (Gordon, 196 3): Cautiousness— Individuals who are highly cautious, who consider matters very carefully before making decisions, and do not like to take changes or run risks, score high on this Scale. Those who are impulsive, act on the spur of the moment, make hurried or snap decisions, enjoy taking changes, and seek excitement, score low on this Scale. Original Thinking— High scoring individuals like to work on difficult problems, are intellectually curious, enjoy thought-provoking questions and discussions, and like to think about new ideas. Low scoring individuals dislike working on diffi­ cult or complicated problems, do not care about acquiring knowledge, and are not interested in thought-provoking questions or discussions. 46 3. 4. Personal Relations— High scores are made by those individuals who have great faith and trust in people, and are tolerant, patient, and under­ standing. Low scores reflect a lack of trust or confidence in people, and a tendency to be critical of others and to become annoyed or irritated by what others do. Vigor— High scores on this Scale characterize individuals who are vigorous and energetic, who like to work and move rapidly, and are able to accomplish more than the average person. Low scores are associated with low vitality or energy level, a preference for setting a slow pace, and a tendency to tire easily and be below average in terms of sheer output or productivity (p. 3). In Heilbrun's (1965) review of the Profile and the Inventory he asserted that the instruments were carefully constructed, and standardized and that they represent useful measures of personality. Therefore, because the tests are brief, measure personality through non-threatening questions, and because norms are furnished for college populations, they were chosen to assess the personality traits of the sample of the present study. Both instruments are developed from a factor analytic approach and use a "forced choice" technique. Each question of the Inventory and the Profile consists of a set of four descriptive phrases called "tetrads." Each of the four traits for that particular test is represented by one of the phrases in each tetrad. Each tetrad includes two phrases or items that are considered by typical indi­ viduals to be equally complimentary (of similar high preference valu e ) , and two items that are considered to be equally uncomplimentary value). (of similar low preference 47 For each tetrad the respondent is asked to mark one descriptive phrase as being most like himself and one phrase as being least like himself. The subjects cannot respond favorably to all four items as may be done in the conventional self report personality inventory. The technique is believed to be less susceptible to distortion by individuals who desire to make a good impression. The Inventory is scored as follows: Each of the 2 0 items contains one question for the measurement of each trait (scale). The four scales are scored separately by means of a scoring stencil supplied with the test. The stencil is constructed so that the item marked most contributes two points, and each unmarked item one point. With this scoring system the maximum possible score on each trait (scale) is 40 points. The Profile is scored in the same way; however, since it contains 18 items the maximum possible score in each Scale (personality trait) is 36 points. Reliability data for the Inventory and the Profile are presented in the manuals. The split-half reliability, corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula, for groups of college students are reported here: The Gordon Personal Inventory Trait Cautiousness Original Thinking Personal Relations Vigor Reliability .83 .83 .83 .80 (Gordon, 196 3, p. 17) 48 The Gordon Personal Profile Trait Reliability Ascendancy Responsibility Emotional Stability Sociability .88 .85 .88 .84 (Gordon, 1963, p. 21) In summary the Gordon Personal Profile and the Gordon Personal Inventory can be thought of as a single test measuring eight personality traits. The tests are standardized, have a known reliability, and norms for various groups are published in test manuals. The Profile and the Inventory were chosen as the instruments used to measure personality traits because they are brief and accurate. Moreover, they are currently being used at Michigan State University in a study of prospective teachers of the retarded. Although, this writer's study will not involve a comparison of the scores of people currently in the field with prospective teachers; the use of the same measures will allow such a comparison at a later date. The third and fourth instruments used in this study were developed by Corwin (196 3). They are the Employee Role Orientation Scale and the Professional Role Orien­ tation Scale. Each instrument is constructed to yield two measures; thus the two instruments yield the following scores: 1. Employee Role Orientation a. Employee Role Deprivation 49 2. Professional Role Orientation a. Professional Role Deprivation The Employee Orientation Scale (Appendix B, p. 115) measures a teacher's conception of her obligations as an employee by a 29 item Likert-type scale consisting of six sub-scales; loyalty to the administration, loyalty to the organization, a belief that teaching competence is based on experience and the endorsement of treating personnel interchangeably, endorsement of standardization, emphasis on rules and procedures, and loyalty to the public. A teacher's employee orientation is measured by the average of the sub-scale items. The Employee Orientation Scale is constructed so that it is possible to compute a "deprivation score" between a teacher's conception of her obligations as an employee and her perception of the extent to which this conception is fulfilled in actual practice. It is a "deprivation" in the sense that actual practice diverges from the teacher's conception of the ideal situation. The Employee Role Orientation Scale is scored as follows: Subjects rate each item in one of five ways: strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree. follows: The responses to each item are weighed as 50 strongly agree 5 agree 4 undecided 3 disagree 2 strongly disagree 1 Thus a high score indicates a high employee orien­ tation. Responses to the Employee Role Deprivation questions are weighed in the same way and subtracted from the sum of the appropriate Employee Orientation questions. The Professional Role Orientation Scale (Appendix B, p. 115) measures a teacher's conception of her obligations as a professional by a 16 item Likert-type scale consisting of four sub-scales; orientation to students, orientation to the profession and professional colleagues, a belief that competence is based on knowledge, and a belief that teachers should have decision making authority. Scoring the Professional Orientation Scale is similar to the Employee Orientation Scale. That is "strongly agree" is weighed five while "strongly disagree" is weighed one. Thus a high professional orientation yields a high score. The Professional Orientation Scale also yields a "deprivation score" which indicates the extent to which the teacher perceives actual practice as diverging from her conception of the ideal situation. Both scales were developed in a feasibility study sup­ ported by United States Office of Education (Corwin, 1963) 51 which culminated in a second study utilized the two instruments. (Corwin, 196 6) that The strategy used in developing the instruments was to cull items from the literature, solicit the opinions of experts and content analyze the items into the various sub-scales of each scale. Each scale discriminates at the p = .01 level between select groups of respondents representing extremes in professional and employee behavior. Also, both (a) a group of teachers in a university high school with a reputation for professionalism, and (b) the least employee like groups scored near the expected extremes on each scale: they were among the most professional and least bureaucratic groups in the study. The split-half relia­ bility for the entire Employee Orientation Scale is .84 and for the entire Professional Orientation Scale is .65. Richard A. Purser of the Appleton Century Crofts Company granted permission to use the scales in the present study. The fifth and final instrument included in the study is the Bullock Job Satisfaction Scale (Appendix C ) . Since the instrument was designed to apply to any occu­ pational group all of the questions refer to "job" in a general sense. In order to make the items more specific the word "teaching" was inserted in front of "job" in every item. The instrument as it appeared in the question naire is located in Appendix B, p. 115. 52 According to Bullock the instrument "is composed of ten items requiring evaluations of the employing organi­ zation, the job itself, or the respondent's own position in the work group" [Cheek, 1955, p. 10]. The scale consists of ten questions with five alternative responses to each item. Each set of alternatives was arbitrarily given the values of one, two, three, four, or five with five indicating the greatest amount of satisfaction and one the least on each question. The highest possible score indicating the greatest possible satisfaction on the job is 50. stated that, Dr. Bullock in a personal communication "Estimated split-half reliabilities have consistently been on the order of .90" Cheek [Bullock, 1971]. (1955) in a Michigan State University dissertation has shown that scores on the Bullock Scale correlate .76 with scores obtained on the much more lengthy SRA Job Satisfaction Inventory. Questionnaire Scoring The Professional Role Orientation Scale and the Employee Role Orientation Scale were scored by the Michigan State University Scoring Office. The scores were recorded on magnetic tape and then punched on data cards. The remaining test scores, that is the Gordon Personal Profile, the Gordon Personal Inventory, and the Bullock Job Satisfaction Scale were scored by hand and 53 added to the information on the data cards obtained from the Michigan State University Scoring Office. Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted with a panel of five Michigan State University students acting as respondents. The purpose of this procedure was to indicate any necessary revisions in the questionnaire because of unclear questions or poor construction. As a result of the pilot study an abstract of the study was omitted from the questionnaire and several items in the directions were revised. Collection of Data The data for the study were collected by the use of a mailed questionnaire (Appendix B) which was dis­ tributed with a stamped self-addressed envelope and a scoring pencil to each of the teachers selected as subjects in the study. A cover letter (Appendix D) requesting the co­ operation of the teachers and explaining the purpose of the study was included with the questionnaire. Several steps were taken to obtain the co-operation of the teachers selected as subjects in the study. First, the cover letter included with the questionnaire stated that three respondents would be randomly selected and awarded $10.00 for their participation. A copy of the letter sent to the three respondents who were each 54 awarded $10.00 can be found in Appendix E. Also, the effects of this incentive on the rate of return of the mailed questionnaires can be found in Appendix F. Second, a telephone call was utilized as the follow-up technique. That is, each subject was called within three days after receiving the questionnaire. The purpose of this call was to establish rapport with each subject, develop their interest in the purpose and value of the study, and answer any questions with regard to the questionnaire. incentive. Also, they were reminded of the monetary The effect of this personal contact on the rate of return of the questionnaires is reported in Appendix F. Nonrespondents were called approximately seven days after receiving the questionnaire and a third and final follow-up phone call was made approximately two weeks after the intitial telephone call to those subjects who still had not responded. Five of the subjects had unlisted phone numbers and in these cases a follow-up letter (Appendix G) was sent ten days after the initial questionnaire. Finally, the cover letter stated that the person­ ality tests would be returned to the subjects. This was done with the belief that curiosity concerning one's personality traits would stimulate interest and partici­ pation in the study. The letter which accompanied the return of these tests can be found in Appendix H. 55 Collection of the data was begun on January 31, 1972 and completed on February 19, 1972. Table 2 presents information concerning the return of the mailed instrument. It will be noted that 86% of the regular education subjects and 92% of the special education subjects returned their questionnaires. This resulted in a total return of 89 questionnaires. Shannon (1948) in a study of the rate of return for mailed questionnaires in "reputable research" [p. 139] found that 65.16% was the average return that could be expected. Therefore, the rate of return of questionnaires in the present study should be considered as above average. Moreover, an 89% return allows the assumption that the characteristics of the sample are accurately represented (Kerlinger, 1964, p. 397). As noted earlier in this chapter, the questionnaire was composed of five separate instruments and a bio­ graphical data sheet. Since the scores on the instruments composing a subject's questionnaire were independent of each other it was possible to use a portion of the questionnaire even if some of its constituent instruments were unusable. The number of usable instruments from each returned questionnaire are reported in Table 3. In all cases, analyses of the data included all the scores applicable to answering the particular research question under consideration. This resulted in several of the analyses having slightly different numbers of subjects. 56 TABLE 2 Return of Mailed Questionnaires by District District Type of Teacher Number of Forms Sent Number Returned Percent Returned Regular Education 13 11 85 Special Education 15 14 93 Regular Education 19 16 84 Special Education 18 15 83 Regular Education 18 16 89 Special Education 17 17 100 100 89 89 A B C Total aPercents rounded to nearest whole number. 57 § \ TABLE 3 I-■ i; Usable Instruments From Returned Questionnaires _______________________________________________ Instrument Special Education Regular Education Total Gordon Personal Inventory 42 40 82 Gordon Personal Profile 42 40 82 Professional Role Orientation Scale 44 42 86 Employee Role Orientation Scale 44 42 86 Bullock Job Satisfaction Scale 44 41 85 Biographical data sheets 46 43 89 Number of returned question­ naires with all constituent instruments usable 42 40 82 58 This decision was made in order to utilize the maximum possible amount of the data collected. In all analyses the number of subjects involved is clearly indicated. Biographical data for the respondents, specifi­ cally, age, number of years on present staff, number of years experience in special education, and/or number of years experience in regular education is presented in Table 4. The data is presented in the form of a frequency distribution and cumulative frequency distribution. Information describing the highest degree held and infor­ mation regarding federal or state fellowship awards for training in the education of the handicapped is presented in Table 5. Research Design and Analysis of the Data The data was analyzed using the facilities of the Michigan State University Computer Center.'*' All statistics were tested for significance at the .05 level. In order to answer the research questions posed in this study the following design and method of data analysis were used. First, there follows a brief summary of the notation used throughout the remainder of the presentation and in Chapter IV. Use of the Michigan State University computing facilities was made possible through support, in part, from the National Science Foundation. 59 TABLE 4 Frequency Distribution of Biographical Data for Subjects Included in the Study Regular Education Teachers (n=43) Frequency Cumulative Frequency Special Education Teachers (n=46) Frequency Cumulative Frequency Age 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-45 46 or over 6 9 4 9 15 6 15 19 28 43 15 9 6 5 11 15 24 30 35 46 No. Years on Present Staff 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11 or over 2 9 6 17 9 2 11 17 34 43 9 15 8 6 8 9 24 32 38 46 No. Years Experience in Special Education 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11 or over 43 0 0 0 0 43 43 43 43 43 7 16 4 10 9 7 23 27 37 46 No. Years Experience in Regular Education 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11 or over 2 7 3 17 14 2 9 12 29 43 27 3 4 6 6 27 30 34 40 46 60 f m fes i §£: is :' I" I’: I?; TABLE 5 Information Regarding Education and Fellowship Awards Regular Education Teachers (n=43) Special Education Teachers (n=46) Highest Degree Held No Degree Associate Degree Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Other Total 0 0 26 17 0 0 0 27 19 0 43 46 0 0 1 0 2 8 0 5 Fellowship Award for Preparation in Education of the Handicapped Junior Year Senior Year Summer School Masters Program Other Total • • 1 • 15 • 61 let X Q = Job Satisfaction Xg = Vigor X 1 = Ascendancy Xg = Professional Role Deprivation x2 = Responsibility _ Employee Role Deprivation Xg = Emotional Stability Xgg = Professional Orientation X^ = Sociability X^g = Employee Orientation Xg = Cautiousness Xg = Original Thinking Xy = Personal Relations also R 2 = the sample squared multiple correlation b = the sample regression weights, beta weights rg ^ = the sample zero order correlation between job satisfaction and the first predictor variable A Xg = the predicted value of a person's job satis­ faction score given R b lr 0.1 + b 2r 0.2 + • • • • b ior 0.10 Xg = bg (subjects score on predictor Xg) + b 2 (score on X 2 ), etc. definition 2 the squared multiple correlation coefficient, R , sometimes called the coefficient of multiple 62 determination represents the proportion of variance accounted for by the predictors using a linear regression equation. In the first research question of the study the two groups of teachers were compared on their level of expressed job satisfaction. was two fold: The purpose of the comparison (1) to determine if there was an overall difference between the groups; and (2) to establish a point of reference in interpreting possible differences between the two groups on those variables predictive of job satisfaction. The statistical analysis used to determine whether or not the groups differed on job satisfaction was computed using the Finn Program 1967). (Finn, This program yields as part of its output a multivariate F test for significant differences between the groups of teachers on all variables measured. Research Question 2 is addressed to discovering differences between the two groups of teachers on the personality, role orientation or situational variables measured in the study. Information as to whether or not the groups differ on these variables is important back­ ground for interpreting differences on those variables found to be predictive of job satisfaction. The sta­ tistical analysis used to determine if the two groups of teachers differed significantly on personality, situ­ ational and role orientation variables was a multivariate 63 F test which is part of the Finn Program output. The multivariate F test has an advantage over individual t tests in that the probability of a type I error is held at the specified level, in this case .05. Next, the multiple linear regression equation for predicting job satisfaction from the personality and situ­ ational variables was derived for each group of teachers. The computations were carried out using the Least Squares Program (Ruble, et a l . , 1966a). Thus, in research Question 3 the regression equation for predicting job satisfaction for the regular education teachers was presented; and, in research Question 4 the regression equation was presented for the special education teachers. In each regression equation a beta weight was assigned to each predictor (i.e., personality and situ­ ational) variable in each group of teachers. Beta weights are determined by the orthogonal component of the variable under consideration; thus, a comparison of the corresponding beta weights across the groups of teachers allows for a determination of whether or not each predictor variable has the same relative importance in predicting job satisfaction for each group of teachers. Therefore, the goal of research questions three and four was the derivation of beta weights to be used in a later research question which compared the groups of teachers. 64 The objective of research Question 5 was to 2 discover if the amount of variance accounted for, R , was significant for both of the regression equations derived in research Questions 3 and 4. using the Least Squares Program This test was accomplished (Ruble, et a l . , 1966a). Finally, with the regression equations computed and tested for significance, it becomes possible to conduct an analysis to compare the two groups of teachers and determine if there is a differential relationship of the predictor variables (i.e., personality and situational) to job satisfaction across the two groups of teachers. This comparison was the objective for research Question 6. It should be recalled that the orthogonal component of a variable is regarded as its measure of importance. Since beta weights are dependent on the orthogonal component of a variable, the comparison of the two groups of teachers on the relative importance of personality and situational variables is really a test of whether or not the corre­ sponding beta weights are equal. The formula used to test for homogeneity of regression functions is suggested by Wilson and Carry (1971) and was computed manually. Since this test is not very common a brief summary of the derivation of the test statistic appears in Appendix I. Most of the values inserted into the formula were available from the computer print-outs obtained in answering questions three and four. 65 However, it was necessary to compute a new least squares regression equation for the combined groups of teachers, in order to obtain the remainder of the values to insert into the formula. If the answer to research Question 6 had been affirmative, that is, if the predictor variables had a significant differential importance across the groups of teachers, then research Questions 7, 8, and 9 would have been answered separately for each group of teachers. However, the comparison of the groups showed there is no differential relationship between the predictor variables and job satisfaction across the groups. Therefore, the remaining research questions were answered on data obtained from the combined groups of teachers. The purpose of research Question 7 was to investi­ gate the actual amount of variance in job satisfaction scores accounted for by each variable. To answer this question it was necessary to compute a multiple regression equation using all ten predictor variables. accomplished using the Least Squares Program 1966a). This was (Ruble, et a l ., The equation takes the general form: (1) R1 = t ^ r ^ + ^>2r 0 .2 ■ * ■ • • • • b ior 0.10 Next, a regression equation was computed using nine of the predictor variables, leaving out the variable whose unique contribution to variance of job satisfaction scores is to 66 be measured. Say the variable X^ (ascendancy) is left out, the linear regression equation would then take the form: (2) R 2 = b 2 r ^ 2 + b^ r Q>3 + . . . . b 1Q r 0>10 Thus, the difference between 2 2 and R 2 is a measure of the unique contribution of variable X^ (ascendancy) to the squared multiple correlation predicting job satisfaction using all ten of the variables. 2 The test to determine if 2 R^ is significantly greater than R2 was also computed. This test is quite straightforward and has been described in McNemar (1962, p. 284). To determine the unique contribution of each of the remaining predictor variables to the variance in job satisfaction scores, equation 2 was repeated nine times, each time deleting only the variable whose unique contri­ bution was determined. Each squared multiple correlation 2 thus obtained will be subtracted from R^ and tested to determine if its contribution to the prediction of job satisfaction is statistically significant. The interpretation given to this partitioning procedure is that the relative usefulness of each variable in accounting for the variance in job satisfaction scores can be shown. Once the unique contribution of each variable has been shown it is of interest to determine the amount of 67 variance accounted for by personality variables as a group and situational variables as a group. purpose of research Question 8. Mood This was the (1971) has suggested that grouping variables is desirable when an a priori theory provides a rationale for the groups. Certainly the Getzels-Guba Theory discussed in Chapter I provides such a rationale. Moreover, this question was asked because variables which individually are not significant may as a group account for a significant portion of the variance in a criterion. The method of determining whether or not a group of variables add significantly to the squared multiple correlation was conducted in a manner very similar to the technique used in question number seven that is: lCTO.lO 10 ~ 0.10 (5) 2 - 2 1 *2 - (new regression equation with personality variables deleted) the unique contribution of personality variables to the variance in job satis­ faction scores or the prediction of job satisfaction. 2 The quantity given by subtracting R 2 2 from R^ was tested for significance using McNemar's formula referred to in research Question 7. The interpretation, if personality variables as a group and situational variables as a group both account for a significant part of the variance in 68 job satisfaction scores, is that both are useful in predicting job satisfaction. The final research question dealt with the problem of determining the smallest set of personality and situ­ ational variables which can be used to account for the variance in the job satisfaction scores without signifi­ cantly decreasing the squared multiple correlation coefficient obtained by using the full set of ten predictor variables. The answer to this question also indicates the total amount of variance accounted for by the combined effect of those variables whose unique contribution to the squared multiple correlation coefficient is significant. That is, the variables in research Question 7 whose unique contributions were significant will account for a greater portion of the variance in job satisfaction scores than the sum of their unique parts. This is true because of the overlap or joint explanatory power of a group of variables. Therefore, in order to answer research Question 9 a stepwise deletion procedure was conducted on the data. This was accomplished using the Least Squares Deletion Program (Ruble, 1966b). In stepwise deletion all the predictor variables are used in an initial least squares regression equation. The variable selected for deletion is the variable that will be missec’ the least; that is, a greater part of its variation can be accounted for than if any other variable had been deleted. The F statistic calculated at a given 69 step tests the null hypothesis (Hq ) that the variable chosen for deletion can account for none of the variation in the criterion variable above that which can be accounted for by the remainder of the predictor variables, against the alternative (H^) that the variable to be deleted can account for variation in the dependent variable above that accounted for by the remainder of the predictor variables. Once deleted a variable is not reentered. The deletion process continued until a variable was encountered whose deletion would significantly decrease the overall multiple correlation squared at the .05 level. When this stopping criteria is met every variable remaining in the regression equation contributes significantly at the .05 level or greater to the multiple correlation coefficient squared. Summary The procedures followed in collecting and analyzing the data used in determining the relationship between selected variables and job satisfaction were explained in this chapter. The population was defined, the method of sample selection described and the instruments used in gathering the data were presented. In Chapter IV the results are analyzed and interpreted. { ' t I CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA Introduction The results of this study are presented in a format which attempts to answer the research questions listed in Chapter I. A multivariate F test was used in order to determine if statistically significant differences existed between the two groups of teachers on job satisfaction, personality, role orientation, and situational variables. A multiple regression equation was computed for each group of teachers in order to determine the regression weights assigned to each personality and situational variable. The regression equations derived for each group of teachers were tested for significance. Next, the regression equation derived for the regular education teachers and the regression equation derived for the special education teachers were compared to determine if a differential relationship exists between each of the personality and situational variables across the two groups of teachers. 70 71 Since no difference was found across the two groups of teachers the remainder of the research questions were answered using data from the combined groups. Thus, the actual contribution of each variable to the variance in job satisfaction scores was determined for the combined groups of teachers. Also, the relationship of personality variables as a group and situational variables as a group to job satisfaction was computed on data from the combined groups of teachers. Finally, the smallest set of person­ ality and situational variables that could be used to predict job satisfaction, without significantly decreasing the overall squared multiple correlation, was computed for the combined groups of teachers. Results Nine research questions are answered in this study. The questions are discussed sequentially and the data pertaining to these questions are presented in the form of discussion and tables. Question 1 .— Do teachers of regular elementary children differ from teachers of elementary educable retarded children on job satisfaction as measured by the Bullock Job Satisfaction Scale? As indicated in Table 6 the two groups of teachers were not significantly different on the levels of expressed job satisfaction. It is reported in Table 6 that the mean 72 TABLE 6 Summary of Sample Sizes, Means, Standard Deviations, and Multivariate F Tests for Regular Education Teachers and Special Education Teachers on All Variables Measured Special Education Teachers Regular Education Teachers Job Satisfaction N Me an S.D. 46 40.74 .76 46 38.42 1.54 Ascendancy N Mean S.D. 42 19.41 .84 40 20.86 1.68 Responsibility N Mean S.D. 42 23.09 .35 40 25.77 1.70 Emotional Stability N Mean S.D. 42 21.13 86 . 40 23. 09 1. 71 Sociability N Mean S.D. 42 19. 07 86 . 40 19. 47 1.73 Cautiousness N Mean S.D. 42 22.20 .93 40 25.91 1.85 Original Thinking N Mean S.D. 42 22.28 .88 40 23. 86 1.76 Personal Relations N Mean S.D. 42 23.13 .89 40 23.88 1.78 Variable Multivariate F 2. 26 0.75 2. 50 1. 31 .05 4 .00* 0.80 0.18 73 TABLE 6 Continued Special Education Teachers Regular Education Teachers Vigor N Mean S.D. 42 23.13 .92 40 23.49 1. 84 Employee Orientation N Mean S.D. 44 64.22 3. 46 41 62.60 6.93 Employee Role Deprivation N 44 Mean -11.98 S.D. 1.73 43 -2. 35 -3.47 Professional Orientation N Mean S.D. 44 58.85 1.44 43 56.67 2.88 Professional Role Deprivation N Mean S.D. 44 9.52 1.12 43 4.02 2.23 Variable Multivariate F 0. 04 0.05 7. 71* 0.57 6.06* *Significant at less than .05 level of type I error. 74 for the special education group was 40.74 and the mean for the regular education group was 38.42. Since the job satisfaction scale used in this study measured the overall feeling of contentment a person expresses with his job, it appears that both groups obtain the same level of satis­ faction from their work. Question 2 .--Is there a difference between teachers of regular elementary children and teachers of educable mentally retarded children on any of the following vari­ ables? Personality Variables 1. Ascendancy 2. Responsibility 3. Emotional Stability Situational Variables 9. Employee Role Deprivation 10. Professional Role Deprivation 4. Sociability 5. Cautiousness Role Orientation Variables 6. Original Thinking 11. Employee Orientation 7. Personal Relations 12. Professional Orientation 8. Vigor As inspection of Table 6 reveals the two groups of teachers were significantly different on the personality variable Cautiousness and on the situational variables Employee Role Deprivation and Professional Role Deprivation. 75 As Table 6 illustrates the mean score on Cautious­ ness for the regular education teachers 25.91, was signifi­ cantly higher than the mean score for the special education group, 22.20. Stated differently, the special education teachers scored significantly lower on the trait Cautious­ ness than the regular education teachers. It is interesting to compare both groups of teachers to the general sample of college women on which the norms for Cautiousness were based. The special education teachers scored at the 4 3rd percentile and the regular education teachers scored at the 67th percentile. Thus, even though a difference exists between the groups, neither could be considered as scoring at the extremes of the scale. Regarding the significant differences between the two groups of teachers on the two role deprivation vari­ ables, it should be noted that the mean for the regular education teachers on Employee Role Deprivation was -2.35 and for the special education teachers -11.35. A score of zero on these scales indicates perfect agreement between one's ideal and actual practice. Thus, the regular education group scored nearer the floor of these scales. The negative scores indicate that both groups of teachers perceived higher employee orientation (i.e., loyalty to the organization, etc.) on the part of colleagues and administrators than they expressed as the ideal. As indicated by the scores, the special education group perceived a greater difference between the ideal and 76 their perception of actual practice and the difference was in the direction of greater perceived loyalty to the organization than was deemed appropriate. The mean score for the regular education teachers on Professional Role Deprivation was 4.02 and for the special education group was 9.52. Here again, the special education teachers perceived a greater differ­ ence between the ideal and their perception of actual practice. The fact that the differences were scored in a positive direction indicates that both groups expressed a higher level of professional orientation as their ideal than they perceived as being the case in actual practice. Thus on both role deprivation variables, the teachers of elementary level educable children expressed a greater difference between the ideal and actual practice than was expressed by the regular education elementary teachers. Question 3 .— What is the linear regression equation for predicting job satisfaction for teachers of regular elementary children using the following personality and situational variables? 77 Personality Variables 1. Ascendancy Situational Variables 9. Employee Role Deprivation 2. Responsibility 10. Professional Role 3. Emotional Stability Deprivation 4. Sociability 5. Cautiousness 6. Original Thinking 7. Personal Relations 8. Vigor Using the calculation of Least Squares Program (Ruble, et a l ., 1966a) the regression equation for the regular education teachers with job satisfaction as a criterion was found to be: o = +.21X, + 1 .01Xo + 2 .03X-, - .02X . + 3 4 +.33X7 + .51Xg + .12X9 - .06X 1 q .09 X C 5 .42XC 6 Table 7 gives the beta weights and their standard errors. The regression equation for regular education teachers accounted for 48.97 per cent of the variance in job satisfaction scores or, stated differently R 2 = .4897. The correlation matrix for the predictor variables with the criterion and with each other are presented in Appendix J. As indicated in the previous chapter, in the section on "Research Design and Analysis of the Data," TABLE 7 Beta Weights and Standard Errors With Job Satisfaction as a Criterion Regular Education Teachers (N=40) Variable Ascendancy Standard Errors of Betas 0.21 0.27 -0.04 0.22 0.01 0.20 -0.07 0.18 0.03 0.21 0. 33 0.19 -0. 02 0.29 0.12 0.24 0.09 0. 22 -0.12 0.16 -0.42 0.18 0.14 0. 20 0.33 0.18 0. 21 0.16 0.51 0.17 0.42 0.25 0.12 0.16 -0.16 0.14 -0.06 0.19 -0. 26 0.13 (X2 ) Emotional Stability Sociability Cautiousness (Xg ) (X^) (Xc) D Original Thinking Personal Relations Vigor Beta Weights (X^) Responsibility (Xg ) (X^) (Xg ) Employee Deprivation Professional Deprivation (x ^g) Special Education Teachers (N=42) (Xg) Beta Weights Standard Errors of Betas 79 this research question is a necessary preliminary in determining whether or not each personality and situational variable has a differential importance across groups in relation to job satisfaction. Further interpretation of the results of this question will be given in research Question 6. Question 4 .— What is the linear regression equation for predicting job satisfaction for elementary level teachers of educable mentally retarded children using the following personality and situational variables? Personality Variables Situational Variables 1. Ascendancy 9. Employee Role Deprivation 2. Responsibility 10. Professional Role 3. Emotional Stability Deprivation 4. Sociability 5. Cautiousness 6. Original Thinking 7. Personal Relations 8. Vigor Using the calculation of Least Squares Program (Ruble, et a l ., 1966a) the regression equation for the special education teachers with job satisfaction as a criterion was found to be: 80 X„ = -. 04X, 0 1 - .07 X o 2 + .33X.J + .13X. - .12XC + 3 4 5 .14X, 6 + .22X? + -42Xg - .16Xg - .26X 1 q Table 7 reports the Beta weights and their standard errors The regression equation for the special education teachers accounted for 53.53 per cent of the variance in satisfaction scores, or stated differently R 2 job = .5353. The correlation matrix of the predictor variables with the criterion and with each other is presented in Appendix K. This question like research Question 3 was a neces sary preliminary in determining whether or not each personality and situational variable has a differential importance in relation to job satisfaction across the groups of teachers. Further discussion of this question will be presented in research Question 6. Question 5 .--Is the amount of variance in job satisfaction scores attributable to personality and situ­ ational variables significant in both regular education elementary teachers and elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded? In statistical terms the hypothesis tested is that the vector of regression coefficients vector (0). (Beta) is a zero This hypothesis was tested separately for each group of teachers. The results are presented in Table 8 for the regular education teachers and in Table 9 for the special education teachers. 81 TABLE 8 Analysis of Regression Regular Education Teachers (N=40) Sum of Squares d. f . Due to Regression 1013.158 10 Error 1055.942 29 Total 2069.000 39 Source F 2.783* ♦Significant at less than .05 level of type I error. TABLE 9 Analysis of Regression Special Education Teachers (N=4 2) Source Sum of Squares d.f. F 3.57* Due to Regression 495.142 10 Error 429.834 31 Total 924.976 41 *Significant at less than .05 level of type I error. 82 The F ratio was significant in each group of teachers. Therefore, it was concluded that the regression coefficients associated with the predictor variables do explain a significant amount of the variance in job satisfaction scores. 2 This is the same as saying that R » the squared multiple correlation coefficient was signifi­ cant for each group. Question 6 .--Is there a differential relationship of the following personality and situational variables to the expressed level of job satisfaction across the two groups of teachers? Personality Variables 1. Ascendancy 2. Responsibility 3. Emotional Stability Situational Variables 9. Employee Role Deprivation 10. Professional Role Deprivation 4. Sociability 5. Cautiousness 6. Original Thinking 7. Personal Relations 8. Vigor As indicated in Table 10 the likelihood ratio was not significant when the analysis was computed. Therefore, it is concluded that the parameters of the regression weights for predicting job satisfaction from the same 83 TABLE 10 Analysis of Homogeneity of Regressions on Job Satisfaction Source of Variation Sum of Squares d. f . Pooled Regression 1732.322 Total for Two Groups 1485.776 60 247.554 10 Difference in Regression F .0288* *Not significant at less than the .05 level of type I error. personality and situational variables is the same for the special education teachers and the regular education teachers. Essentially this means that the corresponding regression functions derived separately for each group of teachers in research Questions 3 and 4 were not signifi­ cantly different across the groups of teachers. Therefore, the overall conclusion derived from Question 6 is that the same variables have the same relative importance in predicting job satisfaction across the two groups of teachers. Since the regression equations are the same for the two groups of teachers, the groups were combined and the remaining research questions answered using the data from the combined groups. This is an appropriate procedure since the answers to the questions obtained for the 84 separate groups would not have been significantly differ­ ent from the answers obtained for the combined groups. The new linear regression equation computed on the data from the combined groups took the form: Xn = 0 .03X, - . 08Xo + 0.027X-, 1 2 3 - .25XC + . 3 3 X n + 6 7 0.02X.- .09X,. 4 5 .58XC -.03XQ - .16X,„ 8 9 10 The squared multiple correlation coefficient for the combined groups was .4317, or R 2 = .4317. As indicated in Table 11 the new squared multiple correlation coefficient was significant. The correlation matrix of the predictor variables with job satisfaction and with each other for the combined groups of teachers is presented in Appendix L. TABLE 11 Analysis of Regression Combined Groups of Teachers (N=82) Sum of Squares d.f. F Due to Regression 1315.934 10 5.39* Error 1732.322 71 Total 3048.256 81 *Significant at less than .05 level of type I error. 85 Question 7 .— What is the unique contribution of each of the following personality and situational variables in accounting for the variance in job satisfaction scores in the combined groups of teachers? Personality Variables 1. Ascendancy 2. Responsibility 3. Emotional Stability Situational Variables 9. Employee Role Deprivation 10. Professional Role Deprivation 4. Sociability 5. Cautiousness 6. Original Thinking 7. Personal Relations 8. Vigor The statistical tests showed that in the combined groups of teachers the following variables accounted for significant portions of the overall multiple correlation coefficient squared not accounted for by any other vari­ able. The variables and the portions of variance in the criterion explained uniquely by them are Vigor, 17.35 per cent; Personal Relations, 7.06 per cent? Original Thinking, 3.67 per cent; and Emotional Stability 3.42 per cent. Table 12 reports the unique contribution of each of the predictor variables. Interpretation of these results is quite straightforward. 2 The overall R , or proportion of variance m 86 TABLE 12 Unique Contribution of Each Variable to the Squared Multiple Correlation Coefficient for Predicting Job Satisfaction (N=82) Overall r 2 = .4 317 Variable Deleted R2 Deletes Unique Contribution to Overall r 2 r2 F Sociability .4316 .0001 0.20 Ascendancy .4314 .0003 0.04 Employee Deprivation .4311 .0006 .08 Responsibility .4280 .0037 0.46 Cautiousness .4276 .0041 0.51 Professional Deprivation .4148 .0169 2.11 Emotional Stability .3975 .0342 4.28* Original Thinking .3950 .0367 4.58* Personal Relations .3611 .0706 8.82* Vigor .2582 .1735 14.96* *Significant at less than .05 level of type I error. 87 job satisfaction scores accounted for using all ten vari­ ables was .4317. When the variable Vigor is deleted the remaining nine variables account for only 25.82 per cent of the variance. Thus, Vigor is the most important variable in the entire set in accounting for the variance in job satisfaction scores. Likewise, when Personal Relations is deleted the remaining variables account for only 36.11 per cent of the variance in job satisfaction scores. Also, Original Thinking and Emotional Stability account for smaller, but nevertheless significant, unique portions of the overall squared multiple correlation coefficient. Question 8 .— What is the unique contribution of each set of personality variables (i.e., ascendancy, responsibility, emotional stability, sociability, cautiousness, original thinking, personal relations, vigor) and each set of situational variables (i.e., employee role deprivation, professional role deprivation) in accounting for the variance in job satisfaction scores for the combined groups of teachers. The multiple correlation squared using only the personality variables was .3907 and adding the situational variables increased it to only .4317. The test statistic used to determine if the addition of situational variables adds significantly to the squared multiple correlation was 88 the likelihood ratio given by McNemar used in (196 2, the previous research question. The value of the F statistic was not the .05 p. 284) and level. significant at Consequently, the accuracy of prediction of job satisfaction scores for the combined groups of teachers was not enhanced by adding situational variables to the set of personality predictors. Table 13 reports the unique contribution of each group of variables. TABLE 13 Unique Contribution of Each Set of Personality and Situational Variables to the Squared Multiple Correlation Coefficient for Predicting Job Satisfaction (N=82) Overall R2 = .4317 Group of Variables Deleted R2 Deletes Unique Contribution to Overall R 2 R2 Personality .0410 .3907 61.0* Situational .4133 .0184 2.8 F *Significant at less than the .05 level of type I error. Question 9 .--What is the smallest set of personality and situational variables that can be used to predict job satisfaction for the combined groups of teachers without significantly decreasing the squared multiple correlation coefficient that results from using the full set of ten predictors. 89 Stepwise delection of variables revealed that three variables Original Thinking, Personal Relations, and Vigor accounted for 37.73 per cent of the variance in job satisfaction scores for the combined groups of teachers. This is interpreted as follows: given knowledge of a person's scores on all ten personality and situational variables measured in this study it is only necessary to use the three variables listed above to predict level of expressed job satisfaction. The use of any of the other variables will not significantly add to knowledge of his job satisfaction. Summary This chapter has presented the results of the statistical analyses performed on the data collected for the study. The results indicated that the two groups of teachers do not differ on job satisfaction. A test for differences between each group of teachers on means of personality, role orientation and situational variables revealed that the groups differed on Cautiousness, perceived Employee Role Deprivation, and perceived Professional Role Deprivation. The regression equations based on the entire set of personality and situational variables accounted for about 49 per cent of the variance in job satisfaction scores for the regular education group and 54 per cent 90 TABLE 14 Stepwise Deletion of Variables Value of R^ Variable (N=82) Amount of Decrease Deleted and not reentered Sociability .4316 .0001 Ascendancy .4314 .0002 Employee Deprivation .4309 .0005 Responsibility .4261 .0048 Caution .4169 .0093 Professional Deprivation .4040 .0129 Emotional Stability . 3773 .0267 Stopping criteria met here Original Thinking .3253 .0523* Personal Relations • • • • Vigor • • • • *Significant at less than the .05 level of type I error. 91 of the variance in job satisfaction scores in the special education group. The regression equations obtained for each group of teachers were compared and found to be the same. Therefore, the groups were combined and new least squares regression equation, which accounted for about 43 per cent of the variance in job satisfaction scores, was computed. The partitioning procedure revealed that the personality variables Vigor, Personal Relations, Original Thinking, and Emotional Stability were relatively the most important in adding to the multiple correlation coefficient squared. It was found that situational variables as measured in the present study did not add significantly to the overall squared multiple correlation coefficient. Neither did the situational variables exert a joint effect with the personality variables. Finally, it was found that three variables, Vigor, Personal Relations, and Original Thinking could account for an equivalent proportion of variance in the job satis­ faction scores for the combined groups as the full set of personality and situational variables. These relationships will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction This chapter contains a summary of this research. The findings and conclusions of the study are presented and discussed. Finally, suggestions for further research are m a d e . Summary This study focused on two areas of special edu­ cation administration in which there is a paucity of research. First, the study sought to add to empirical knowledge relating to special education personnel. Second, the study utilized a theoretical model which is widely used in general education and sought to expand its usefulness to special education administration. The study had four major objectives: 1. To compare the relative level of expressed job satisfaction for regular elementary teachers and elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded. 92 93 2. To determine if corresponding personality and situational variables have the same relative importance in predicting job satisfaction across both groups of teachers. 3. To ascertain the relative importance of each personality variable and each situational variable in predicting job satisfaction for regular ele­ mentary teachers and teachers of the educable mentally retarded. 4. To determine if personality variables when re ­ garded as a group and situational variables also regarded as a group are non-redundantly related to job satisfaction in both groups of teachers. The samples selected for the study were from the population of all the female regular education teachers grades one thru six and female teachers of the educable mentally retarded grades one thru six in all the second class school districts in Michigan. One sample was composed of 50 regular education teachers selected randomly and the other sample consisted of 5 0 special education teachers selected randomly. The data was gathered by means of a mailed questionnaire, composed of five instruments and a bio­ graphical data sheet. The five instruments included were the Gordon Personal Profile, the Gordon Personal Inventory, 94 the Bullock Job Satisfaction Sc a l e , the Employee Orien­ tation Sc a l e , and the Professional Orientation Scale. The major statistical tools employed in the study were a multivariate F-test, least squares regression analysis, analysis of variance tests for the significance of multiple correlation, a test for homogeneity of regression functions, and a step-wise deletion of vari­ ables. The decision rule in all statistical tests was to reject the null hypothesis at the .05 level of type I error. The information accumulated through the use of the questionnaire was analyzed, and resulted in the following findings. Findings 1. The mean score on job satisfaction for regular elementary teachers (38.42) was not significantly different from the mean score for elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded 2. (40.74). Regular elementary teachers were not significantly different from elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded on the following vari­ ables : a. Ascendancy b. Responsibility c. Emotional Stability d. Original Thinking 95 3. e. Personal Relations f. Vigor g. Employee Role Orientation h. Professional Role Orientation Regular elementary teachers obtained a mean score of 25.91 on the variable Cautiousness which was significantly higher than the mean score 22.20 obtained by the elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded. 4. On the variable Employee Role Deprivation the special education teachers expressed a significantly greater difference -11.98, between the ideal and actual practice than was expressed by the regular education teachers, -2.35. 5. On the variable Professional Role Deprivation the special education teachers expressed a signifi­ cantly greater difference 9.52 between the ideal and actual practice than was expressed by the regular education teachers, 4.02. 6. A significant part of the variance 2 (R = .5353) in job satisfaction scores for the regular edu­ cation elementary teachers was predicted by a multiple regression equation using the ten person­ ality and situational variables as predictors. 7. A significant part of the variance 2 (R = .4897) in job satisfaction scores for the elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded was predicted by a multiple regression equation using the ten personality and situational variables as predictors. 8. The regression functions for predicting job satis­ faction for regular education teachers and elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded were not significantly different. 9. The following personality variables made a significant unique contribution to the variance in job satisfaction scores for the combined groups of teachers: 10. a. Vigor (r^ = .1735) b. Personal Relations c. Original Thinking d. Emotional Stability 2 (r = .0706) 2 (r = .0367) (r^ = .0342) Personality variables as a group accounted for a significant portion of the variance (r 2 = .3907) in job satisfaction. 11. Situational variables as a group did not account 2 for a significant portion of the variance (r = .0184) in job satisfaction scores for the combined group. 97 12. The variables Vigor, Personal Relations, and Original Thinking account for 37.7 per cent of the variance in job satisfaction scores and this amount of variance was not significantly less than the amount of variance accounted for by using all ten personality and situational variables as predictors. Conclusions The conclusions that are drawn from this research are based upon the specific objectives of the study stated in Chapter I. 1. Both regular education elementary teachers and elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded are equally satisfied with their re­ spective jobs. 2. The personality characteristics of the two groups appear essentially the same, except that the regular education teachers demonstrate a higher level of the trait Cautiousness than is demon­ strated by the teachers of the educable mentally retarded. 3. The groups do not differ in the level of expressed Professional Role Orientation or Employee Role Orientation. That is, they do not differ on their conceptions of their obligations as professionals or as employees in an organizational structure. 98 4. On the situational variables Employee Role Deprivation and Professional Role Deprivation the elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded perceive a greater difference between the ideal and actual practice than is perceived by the regular education teachers. 5. No variable has a greater importance in one group than in the other in accounting for the variance in job satisfaction. 6. A knowledge of a teacher's scores on the situ­ ational variables measured in this study does not enhance the ability to predict her level of job satisfaction. 7. Three personality variables, Vigor, Personal Relations and Original Thinking are relatively the most important variables in predicting the level of expressed job satisfaction in either group of teachers. Higher scores on these variables are associated with higher satisfaction scores. Discussion and Implications Further discussion of these results is appropriate to clarify the findings and identify implications for practice. One of the objectives of this study was to discover if the two groups of teachers differed on any of the 99 personality, situational and role orientation variables measured. Particularly regarding personality variables, the supposition was that several significant differences between the groups would become apparent. The basis of this belief being the concept expressed in the GetzelsGuba Theory that the differing requirements of various jobs attract persons with differing personalities. However, it was found that the sample of teachers of the educable mentally retarded in this study differed from the regular education sample on only one personality variable, Cautiousness. The regular education group scored higher on this trait; they scored at the 6 7th percentile on the norms for women college students and the special education group scored at the 43rd percentile on these norms. Gordon (196 3) identifies people who score high on this trait as those "who consider matters very carefully before making decisions and do not like to take chances or run risks" (p. 3). One possible explanation of the difference between the two groups on the trait Cautiousness can be found in an examination of the frequency distributions for the ages of the subjects in each group. These frequency distri­ butions are presented in Table 4 in Chapter III. It should be noted that the special education sample is concentrated in the younger age ranges. The types of items which measure the trait Cautiousness seem more likely to be 100 answered affirmatively by older subjects. follow here: Several examples "doesn't care much for excitement; does not act on the spur of the moment; very cautious before proceeding" (Gordon, 1963, p. 11). Until this finding receives further investigation the reason for this difference between the groups remains speculative. Nevertheless, in the present study this difference did not exert a significant differential effect in predicting the job satisfaction of regular education teachers. There were also differences between the groups on Employee Role Deprivation and Professional Role Deprivation. According to Corwin's definition and theoretical framework, those who score farther away from zero on the Employee Role Deprivation Scale perceive a greater difference between their ideal employee orientation (i.e., loyalty to the organization, emphasis on rules and procedures, etc.) and actual practice than those who score nearer to zero. In this sample the special education group felt there was greater employee orientation on the part of colleagues and administrators than they perceived as being the ideal. On the Professional Role Deprivation Scale the teachers of the educable mentally retarded perceived less professional orientation on the part of colleagues and administrators than the special education teachers expressed as the ideal. 101 This study was concerned with implications this difference had for expressed level of job satisfaction. As the results of the study indicate, the greater perceived deprivation in the special education group did not have a linear relationship to expressed level of job satisfaction. One possible reason for this finding is that, as noted previously, the special education group was concentrated in the younger age ranges. Therefore, it may be that the special education teachers have more recently undergone the intensive socialization into professional ideals. Walberg's (1970) review cited in Chapter II provides support for this explanation as does information regarding the attitudes of younger versus older teachers on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (Buros, 1965). The reason for this greater perceived difference between the ideal and actual in the special education group is certainly speculative and highly assumptive; yet, if there is any possibility that it is accurate, then it has implications for university teachers preparing teachers of the educable mentally retarded. The implication being that realistic training programs are necessary so that the neophyte teacher has an adequate conception of actual practice and is prepared for this discrepancy. One of the major purposes of this study was to determine if personality and situational variables had a differential relationship to job satisfaction across the two groups of teachers. It was expected that differing 102 requirements of each job, differences in training and perhaps different motivation in initial career choice would have lead to a differential relationship of some of the predictor variables to job satisfaction. this supposition was not supported. However, If the findings of this study are valid it would appear that the same type of individual will express satisfaction in either job. If this is so, it seems reasonable to assume that the requirements of each job are actually quite similiar. On the other hand, there is the danger that the same "response bias" (Kerlinger, p. 493) was operating in both groups of teachers. That is, all the subjects tended to choose responses which they felt satisfied teachers ought to choose whether or not this was representative of how they actually felt. This is always a danger in paper and pencil tests where no independent criterion outside of the subject is used to validate his responses. Neverthe­ less, based on the findings of this study, the personality and situational variables measured have the same relative importance across both groups of teachers in accounting for the variance in job satisfaction scores. It seems important to note that this finding has implications relevant to the selection of candidates for this field. That is, initially there are differences between candidates for special education and regular education on personality traits (Willman, 1966); however, the results of this study indicate that these differences may not be related to 103 whether or not the candidate will express satisfaction with the job of teacher of the educable mentally retarded. Indeed, this sort of generalization requires more investi­ gation. Finally, one further conclusion of the study deserves further discussion. A major proposition of the Getzels-Guba Model is that both personality and situational variables are important in determining job satisfaction. This study found that personality variables accounted for a significant portion of the variance in job satisfaction scores. However, the supposition that situational vari­ ables would add significantly to the predicted variance in job satisfaction scores was not supported. This finding must be tempered by the consideration that in regression theory the independent variables are considered to be measured without error, i.e., they are perfectly reliable. Clearly, this is an assumption that can hardly ever be met in the behavioral sciences. An inspection of the zero order correlation of Professional Role Deprivation and job satisfaction in the combined groups of teachers indicated that it attained a value of .20 and was not significant. In order to be significant it would have to have equalled .21. With measures of less than perfect reliability and such small differences it becomes apparent that these findings must be replicated before it can be stated with assurance that a knowledge of situational variables does not add to the ability to predict job satisfaction. 104 Nevertheless, in the present study only personality variables were useful in predicting a teachers level of expressed job satisfaction. This finding certainly has implications for special education administrators. Since personality variables are relatively fixed and immutable, it is important to select persons for staff positions who are likely to be satisfied with this type of work. In this study a large portion of the variance, in job satis­ faction scores, 37.7 per cent, could be predicted by a knowledge of three variables. These variables were Vigor, Personal Relations, and Original Thinking. Higher scores on these traits are associated with higher scores on job satisfaction. Consequently, the special education administrator must become skilled at identifying these traits in prospective teachers if he is to enhance his chances of selecting personnel who will express satis­ faction with their work. It should be noted that for practical purposes the variable Emotional Stability is nearly as good a predictor of job satisfaction as Original Thinking. However, it is suggested that either one variable or the other be used as a predictor of job satisfaction. Of course, Original Thinking is slightly more useful as a predictor; that is, it accounts for slightly greater proportion of the variance in job satisfaction scores. This study has made a beginning at identifying those personality traits 105 predictive of satisfied teachers of the educable mentally retarded. These findings should receive further vali­ dation and additional variables which are predictive of job satisfaction in either group should be identified. The study was intended to be a beginning in an attempt to compare those variables related to job satis­ faction in regular elementary teachers and elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded. Of the variables measured in this study, the same variables were equally good predictors in either group of teachers. Implications for Further Study Several ideas that emerged during this research should be the subject of further investigation: 1. Although Corwin's Professional Role Orientation Scale and Employee Role Orientation Scale proved useful in this initial comparison of regular elementary teachers and teachers of the educable mentally retarded, a more appropriate instrument should be developed if additional research is to be undertaken regarding the relative contribution of personality and situational variables to the prediction of job satisfaction. 2. The test of job satisfaction used in the present study measured a teacher's overall contentment with her job. A factorial test of job satisfaction which measured satisfaction with different aspects 106 of the job (i.e., work load, administration, materials and equipment, financial incentives, etc.) might reveal a differential importance for some variables in predicting various aspects of job satisfaction. 3. A study by Willman (1966) showed that students preparing to become teachers of the handicapped differed on personality traits from those students preparing to become regular education teachers. However, the present study did not find similiar differences between practicing regular education teachers and elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded. Therefore, a longi­ tudinal study is urged in order to determine if individuals become modified to fit into a role or if persons whose personality traits are not compatible with the requirements of the role change occupations. 4. The effect of the age of the respondents should be investigated in future studies of teachers of the educable mentally retarded. That is special edu­ cation teachers with only a few years experience should be compared to those with more experience; furthermore, this should be done within a com­ parative design so that the special education 107 teachers could be compared with a comparable group of regular education teachers. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ben-David, Joseph. Professional role of the physican in beauracratized medicine: A study of role conflict. Human Relations, 1971, 1^(3), 255-274. Benne, Kenneth, & Bennis, W. The role of the professional nurse. American Journal of Nursing, 1959, 59(2), 196-198. Biddle, B. J., Twyman, J. P., & Rankin, E. F. The role of the teacher and occupational choice. School Review, 1962, (70), 191-206. Bidwell, Charles E. Some effects of administrative behavior: A study in role theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1957, 2J2) , 163-181. Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics. Hill Book Co., Inc., 1960. New York: McGraw Blatt, Burton. The preparation of special education personnel. Review of Educational Research, 196 6 1(36), 151-161. Bruno, Frank. Life values, manifest needs, and vocational interests as factors influencing professional career satisfaction among teachers of emotionally disturbed children. Unpublished doctoral disser­ tation, Wayne State University, 196 8. Bullock, Robert P. Social Factors Related to Job Satis­ faction, a Technique for the Measurement of Job Satisfaction. Colombus: Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, 1956. Campbell, Donald T . , & Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 196 3. 108 109 Campbell, Merton V. Self-role conflict among teachers and its relationship to satisfaction, effectiveness and confidence in leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1958. Campbell, Roald F. Implications for the practice of administration. In Daniel E. Griffiths (ed.) Sixty-Third Yearbook, Part II, National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Carver, Fred D., & Sergiovanni, Thomas, J. (ed.). Organi­ zations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 196 9. Chalfant, J. C . , & Henderson, R. A. Administration. In G. O. Johnson & H. D. Blank (eds.) Behavioral Research on Exceptional Children. Washington, D.C. Council for Exceptional Children, 1968, 304-331. Chase, Francis P. Teaching. Factors Productive of Satisfaction in University of Chicago, 1951. Cheek, Gloria L. A psychometric study of two indices of job satisfaction. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1955. Conner, L. E. Preliminaries to a theory of administration for special education. Exceptional Children, 1963, (29), 431-436. Cornfield, Jerome, & Tukey, J. K. Average values of mean squares factorials. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1956, (27), 907-949. Corwin, Ronald G. The Development of an Instrument Examining Staff Conflicts in the Public Schools. Final Report, Cooperative Research Project No. 1934 Columbus: Ohio State University, 1963. Corwin, Ronald G. Staff Conflicts in the Public Schools. Final Report, Cooperative Research Project No. 26 33 Columbua: Ohio State University, 196 5a. Corwin, Ronald G. Professional persons in public organi­ zations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1965b, (3), 1-22. Corwin , Ronald, et a l . Foundations of Educational Admini­ stration: A Behavioral Analyses. New Y o r k : Macmillan Co., 1967. 110 Corwin, Ronald G. Militant Professionalism. Meredith Corporation, 1970. New York: Darlington, Richard B. Multiple regression in research and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, (69), 161-182. Draper, N. R . , & Smith, H. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. Etzioni, A m i t a i , (ed.). Semi-Professions and Their Organi­ zation; Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers. New York Free Press, 1969. Ferneau, E. Role-expectations in consultations. Un­ published doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1954. Finn, Jeremy. Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance: A Fortran IV Program. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo, 1967. Getzels, J. W . , & Guba, E. G. Social behavior and the administrative process. The School Review, 1957, 65_(4), 423-441. Getzel, J. W. Administration as a social process. Andrew W. Halpin (ed.) Administrative Theory in Education. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center University of Chicago Press, 1958. Getzels, J. W . , & Thelen, H. A. The classroom as a unique social system. In N. B. Henry (ed.) The Dynamics of Instructional Groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Getzels, J. W. Conflict and role behavior in the edu­ cational setting. In N. L. Gage & W. W. Charters, Jr. (eds.) Readings in the Social Psychology of Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 196 3. Getzels, J. W. , Lipham, James M . , & Campbell, Roald F. Educational Administration as a Social Process. New Y o r k : Harper & Row Publishers, 1968. Gordon, Leonard V. The Gordon Personal Profile: Manual. Saddle Brook, N.J.: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, Inc., 196 3. Ill Gordon, Leonard V. The Gordon Personal Inventory: M anual. Saddle Brook, N.J.:Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, Inc. , 1963. Griffin, Sister Mary M. Job satisfaction of lay and religious teachers in Catholic elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1963. Griffiths, Daniel. Administrative Theory. Appleton Century Crofts, 1959. New York: Hackman, Richard, & Lawler, Edward E. III. Employee relations to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 5_5_(3) , 259-286. Havens, Nels H. The relationships of organizational characteristics and personal characteristics to job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral disser­ tation, Stanford University, 196 3. Heilbrun, Alfred B. Review of the profile and inventory. In Oscar Buros The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook. N.J.: The Gryphon Press, 1965. Jackson, P. W. , & Moscovici, F. The teacher to be: A study of embryonic identification with a pro­ fessional role. School Review, 1963, (26), 41-65. Jones, Reginald L. Research on the special education teacher and special education teaching. In C. H. Meisgeir & John King, The Process of Special Edu­ cation Administration. Scranton, Penn.: International Text Book Company, 1970. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 196 4. Kornhauser, W. , & Hagstrom, W. Scientists in Industry; Conflicts and Accomodation. Berkley; University of California Press, 1962. Kramer, Marlene. Role conceptions of baccalaureate nurses and success in hospital nursing. Nursing Research, 1970, 19^(5) , 428-439. Kramer, Marlene. Role models, role conceptions, and role deprivations. Nursing Research, 1968, 17(2), 115-120. 112 Kramer, M. F. New grad speaks again. Nursing, 1966 , 12^, 2420-2422. American Journal of Lawler, E. E. III., & Hall, D. T. The relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 305-312. Lawrence, P. R . , & Turner, A. N. Industrial Jobs and the Worker. Boston: Harvard University, 1965. Lipham, James M. Organizational character of education: Administrative behavior. Review of Educational Research, 1964 , 34^(10), 435-454. Mackie, Romaine P., et a l . Teachers of Children Who Are Mentally Retarded. Washington, D .C .: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957. Mackie, Romaine P. Special Education in the United States. New York: Teachers College Press, 196 9. Mayro, Joanne, & Lasky, J. J. A work satisfaction survey among nurses. American Journal of Nursing, 1959, 59 (4) , 501-503. Mayo, Elton. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: The Macmillan Company, 192 3. McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962. New York: Mood, Alexander M. Partitioning variance in multiple regression analyses as a tool for developing learning models. American Educational Research Journal, 1971, 3(2), 191-202. Review of Educational Research. Education of Exceptional Children, 1963, 1966, 1969, 33, 36, 39. Rosenberg, M. Occupational Values. Free Press, 1957. Glencoe, 111.: The Ru bl e, et a l . Stat Series Description No. 7, Calculation of Least Squares. Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Michigan, 1966a. 113 Ruble, et a l . Stat Series Description, No. 8, Stepwise Deletion of Variables. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1966b. Saeitler, Herman. Students in Training Programs in the Education of Handicapped Children and Youth 196 8196 9. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. Sargent, S. Conceptions of role and ego in contemporary psychology. In J. H. Rohrer & Sherif Muzopher (eds.) Social Psychology at the Crossroads. New York: Harper & Bros., 1951. Shannon, R. J. Percentages of returns in reputable edu­ cational research. Journal of Educational Research, 1948, 4_2(2), 138-141. Tannenbaum, A. S. The relationship between personality and group structure. In R. Likert, Effective super­ vision: An adaptive and relative process. Personnel Psychology, 1958, (11), 317-332. Vroom, V. H. Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960. Vroom, Victor H. Work and Motivation. Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964. New York: George Walberg, Herbert J. Professional role discontinuities in educational careers. Review of Educational Research, 1970, £0^(3), 409-420. Willman, Carol Elsie. A comparison of prospective special education and elementary teachers on selected personality characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1966. Willower, Donald J. Special education: Organization and administration. Exceptional Children, 1970, 36(8), 591-594. Wilson, James, & Carry, L. Ray. Homogeneity of regression --its rationale, computation and use. American Educational Research Journal, 1969, 6 (lT^ 80-89. APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTER SENT TO SUPERINTENDENTS REQUESTING THEIR CO-OPERATION IN THE STUDY APPENDIX A LETTER SENT TO SUPERINTENDENTS REQUESTING THEIR CO-OPERATION IN THE STUDY January, 1971 Dear This letter is a request for your co-operation to allow me to select a random sample of approximately 33 special education and regular education teachers from your district. The teachers selected will be mailed a question­ naire which is part of a study being conducted at Michigan State University. Since the questionnaire will be sent to the subject's homes no staff time will be involved. Your assistance will be primarily in suggesting how I can go about drawing the sample at random from your staff. The purpose of the study is to determine which specific personality and/or organizational factors are related to satisfaction in teaching. Since the study is being conducted only in selected districts your co-operation is earnestly requested. Naturally, you will be given a full report of the findings and neither you, your school system, nor the respondents will be identified in any way in the final report of the findings. Your consideration of this matter is sincerely appreciated. I will be contacting you within a few days to request an appointment and at that time will be happy to answer any further questions you may have. Sincerely, Stanley J. Urban Doctoral Candidate Special Education Administration 114 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE STUDY APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE STUDY General Instructions This questionnaire is designed to measure the level of job satisfaction and variables associated with job satisfaction for regular education teachers and teachers of the educable mentally retarded. You will not be associated in any way with your responses on the questionnaire. To assure a scoreable questionnaire please observe the following procedures: 1. The questionnaire takes approximately 40 minutes to complete. Since there are no right or wrong answers do not ponder each item, simply mark your first impression. 2. Do not place your name anywhere on the question­ naire . 3. Please use the enclosed lead pencil to mark all your answers. (Keep the pencil you have more than earned i t .) 4. Please answer every question. 115 116 5. Please, if at all possible, return your completed questionnaire within three d ay s . 6. Use the stamped return envelope to return your completed questionnaire. Each section of the questionnaire is preceded by its own specific instructions. 117 Directions Please place a check mark to the left of the appropriate category. 1. Age 1. 2. '3. 4. 5. 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-45 46-and over 2. Sex 1. 2. Male Female 3. Years on staff in this district 1. 2. '3. 4. 5. 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11-or more 4. Years teaching experience in regular education 1. 2. 3. 4. '5. 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11-or more 5. Years teaching experience in special education 1 . 0-1 2. 2-3 3. 4-5 4. 6-10 5. 11-or more 6. Highest degree held 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. no degree Associate Degree Bachelors Degree Masters Degree (fill in other degree if applicable) 7. Have you ever been awarded a Fellowship by the Federal govern­ ment or a State government to further your preparation to teach handicapped children? If so, check the level of training you engaged in while under the grant of fellowship: 1. 2. 3. '4. 5. Junior year Senior year Summer school Masters program ___i___________ i (please indicate other) 118 Employee Role Orientation Scale"*For each item, respond by marking the space through the appropriate category of the key. e.g., Key: 1 2 3 4 5 SA-column A-column U-column D-column SD-column 1— If you strongly agree with the statement 2— If you agree with the statement 3— If you are undecided 4— If you disagree with the statement 5--lf you strongly disagree with the statement _____________________________________________________SA A U D SD 1. Teachers should adjust their teaching to the administration's views of good edu­ cational practice. A. At my school, typically they do adjust their views. 12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 2. The school administration should be better qualified than the teacher to judge what is best for education. A. At my school the administration is generally better qualified. 12 3 4 5 3. Teachers should be obedient, respectful, and loyal to the principal. A. At my school the teachers are. 12 4. 5. 12 3 45 3 4 5 12 3 45 Incase of a dispute in the community over whether a controversial speaker should be permitted in the school, the teacher should look primarily to the judgment of the administration for guidance. A. At my school teachers do. 12 3 45 12 3 45 Personnel who openly criticize the administration should be encouraged to go elsewhere. A. At my school they are. 12 3 45 12 3 45 Adapted from Ronald G. Corwin, MILITANT PRO­ FESSIONALISM: A Study of Organizational Conflict in High Schools, copyright Tel 1970 by Meredith Corporation. By permission of Appleton-Century-Crofts, Educational Division, Meredith Corporation. 119 For each item, respond by marking the space through the appropriate category of the key. e.g., 1 Key: 2 3 4 5 SA-column A-column U-column D-column SD-column 1--If you strongly agree with the statement 2— If you agree with the statement 3— If you are undecided 4— If you disagree with the statement 5— If you strongly disagree with the statement _____________________________________________________SA A U D SD 6. Teachers should not be influenced by the opinions of those teachers whose thinking does not reflect the thinking of the administration. A. At my school, typically they are not. 12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 7. The only way a teacher can keep out of "hot water" is to follow the wishes of the top administration. A. This is the case at my school. 12 3 4 5 8. What is best for the school is best for education. 9. A good teacher should put the interests of his school above everything else. A. At my school the good teachers do. 12 3 45 12 3 45 12 3 4 5 12 3 45 10. In case of doubt about whether a particular practice is better than another, the primary test should be what seems best for the overall reputation of the school. 12 3 45 11. A good teacher should put the interests of his department above everything else. A. At my school teachers do. 12 3 45 12 3 45 Pay should be in relation to teacher experience. A. This is the case at my school. 12 3 45 12 3 45 Often classroom experience simply gives the teacher the opportunity to practice his mistakes. 12 3 45 12. 13. 14. Teachers of the same subject throughout the system should follow the same kind of lesson plan. A. This is the case in my system. 12 3 4 5 12 3 45 120 For each item, respond by marking the space through the appropriate category of the key. e .g . , 1 Key: 15. 16. 17. 2 SA-column A-column U-column D-column SD-column 3 4 5 1— 2— 3— 4— 5— If you strongly agree with the statement If you agree with the statement If you are undecided If you disagree with the statement If you strongly disagree with the statement SA A U D SD Teachers should teach their course in such 12 a way that a substitute can take over at a moment's notice without serious interruption. A. At my school teachers do. 12 3 4 5 The work of a course should be planned so that every child taking the same kind of course throughout the state will eventually cover the same material. A. This is the case at my school. 12 34 5 12 3 4 5 34 5 A good teacher should be able to efficiently 1 2 3 4 5 teach the children what they need to know in the limited time available. A. This is the definition of a good 1 23 4 5 teacher at my school. 18. Teachers should be completely familiar with the written description of the rules, procedures, manuals, and other standard operating procedures for operating the classroom. A. At my school, nearly all teachers are. 1 23 4 5 1 23 4 5 19. Teachers should have a manual of rules and regulations that are actually followed. A. This is the case at my school. 1 23 4 5 1 23 4 5 20. Rules stating when the teacher should arrive and depart from the building should be strictly enforced. A. This is the case at my school. 1 23 4 5 1 23 4 5 21. To prevent confusion and friction among the staff, there should be a rule covering every problem at the school that might come up. A. This is the case at my school. 1 23 4 5 1 23 4 5 121 For each item, respond by marking the space through the appropriate category of the key. e .g. , 1 Key: 2 3 4 5 SA-column A-column U-column D-column SD-column 1--If you strongly agree with the statement 2— If you agree with the statement 3--If you are undecided 4--If you disagree with the statement 5--If you strongly disagree with the statement _____________________________________________________SA A U D SD 22. There should be the topics that discussion in a A. This is the 23. 24. 25. 26. definite rules specifying are not appropriate for classroom. case at my school. 12 3 4 5 12 3 45 12 3 45 12 3 45 12 3 45 12 3 45 Teachers should not publicly advocate a position on the place of religion in the schools which differs greatly from the majority opinion of the community. A. At my school typically they do not. 12 3 45 12 3 45 A good teacher is one who conforms in general to accepted standard in the community. A. At my school this is the definition of a good teacher. 12 3 45 When a controversey arises about the interpretation of school rules, a teacher should not stick his neck out by taking a definite position. A. At my school typically they do not. Teachers should take into account the opinions of their community in guiding what they say in class and in their choice of materials. A. At my school they do. 12 3 45 27. The criterion of a good school should be one 1 2 that serves the needs of the local community. 3 4 5 28. Teachers should not attempt to discuss any controversial issues (such as abolishing the House Un-American Activities Committee) which may jeopardize the school's public relations. A. At my school teachers typically do not. 12 3 4 5 12 3 45 122 For each item, respond by marking the space through the appropriate category of the key. e.g., Key: 1 2 3 4 5 1--If you strongly agree with the statement 2— If you agree with the statement 3— If you are undecided 4--If you disagree with the statement 5— If you strongly disagree with the statement _____________________________________________________SA A U D SD 29. SA-column A-column U-column D-column SD-column Local control over schools by local boards represents the most fundamental form of democracy in public education. 12 3 4 5 be permissable for the teacher to rule if she is sure that the best of the students will be served in 12 3 4 5 school it is permissable. 12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 32. A good teacher should not do anything that she believes will jeoparidze the interests of her students regardless of who tells her or what the rules state. A. At my school teachers do not. 12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 33. 12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 Professional Role Orientation Scale 30. 31. It should violate a interests doing so. A. At my Unless she is satisfied that it is best for the student, a teacher should not do what she is told to do. A. At my school teachers do not typically do what they are told unless they are convinced that it is best for the student. Teachers should try to live up to what they think are the standards of their profession even if the administration or the community do not seem to respect them. A. This is typically true of the teachers at my school. 34. One primary criterion of a good school should be the amount of respect that it commands from other teachers around the state. 123 For each item, respond by marking the space through the appropriate category of the key. e.g., Key: 1 2 3 4 5 SA-column A-column U-column D-column SD-column 1--If you strongly agree with the statement 2--If you agree with the statement 3— If you are undecided 4— If you disagree with- the statement 5— If you strongly disagree with the statement ____________________________________________________ SA A U D SD 35. A teacher should try to put his standards and ideals of good teaching into practice even if the rules or procedures of the school prohibit it. A. At my school typically teachers do give priority to their professional ideals. 36. Teachers should subscribe to and diligently read the standard professional journals. A. This is the case at my school. 37. Teachers should be active members of at least one professional teaching associ­ ation, and attend most conferences and meetings of the association. A. This is the case at my school. 38. A teacher should consistently practice her ideas of the best educational practices even though the administration prefers other views. A. At my school typically teachers do give priority to their own ideas. 39. A teacher's skill should be based primarily on her acquaintance with her subject matter. A. This is the basis for judging teacher's skill at my school. 40. Teachers should be evaluated primarily on the basis of their knowledge of the subject that is to be taught and their ability to communicate it. A. This is how teachers are evaluated at my school. 12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 123 4 5 123 4 5 12 3 4 5 123 4 5 123 4 5 123 4 5 124 For each item, respond by marking the space through the appropriate category of the key. e.g., Key: 1 2 3 SA-column A-column U-column D-column SD-column 1— 2— 3— 4— 5— 4 5 If you strongly agree with the statement If you agree with the statement If you are undecided If you disagree with the statement If you strongly- disagree with the statement _____________________________________________________SA A U D SD 41. Schools should hire no one to teach unless he holds at least a four-years bachelors degree. A. This is the case at my school. 42. 4 3. 44. 45. 12 3 4 5 12 3 45 In view of the teacher shortage it should be permissable to hire teachers trained at non-accredited colleges. A. My school does hire teachers from nonaccredited colleges. 12 3 45 A teacher should be able to make his own decisions about problems that cone up in the classroom. A. At my school teachers are allowed to make these decisions. 12 3 45 Small matters should not have to be referred to someone higher up for a final answer. A. At my school small matters need not be referred to someone higher up. 12 3 45 The ultimate authority over major educational decisions should be exercised by professional teachers. A. This is the case at my school. 12 3 45 12 3 45 12 3 45 12 3 45 12 3 45 PLEASE NOTE: Pages 125-126, "Gordon Personal Profile", (c) 1953 by Harcourt, Brace 5 World, Inc. and pages 127-128, "Gordon Personal Inventory", © 1956 by Harcourt, Brace 6 World, Inc., not microfilmed at request of author. Available for consultation at Michigan State University Library. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. 129 Job Satisfaction Scale The following statements show some ofthe ways people feel about their teaching position. In each item, please put a check in front of the statement which most accurately and honestly tells how you feel about your teaching position. 1. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells how good a teaching job you have. A. It is an excellent one, very much above the average. B. It is a fairly good one. C. It is only average. D. It is not as good as the average for this kind of job . E . It is a very poor one, very much below the average for this kind of job. 2. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best describes your feelings about your teaching position. A. I am very happy and satisfied with the position I ha v e . B. I am fairly well satisfied with my position. C. I am neither satisfied nor dissatisfied— it is just an average position. D. I am a little dissatisfied with the position I ha v e . E. I am very dissatisfied and unhappy with my position. 3. Check one of the following which best describes any general teaching conditions which affect your work and comfort on this job. A. General working and teaching conditions are very bad. B. General working and teaching conditions are poor— not so good as the average for the teaching profession. C. General working and teaching conditions are about average--neither good nor bad. D. In general, working and teaching conditions are good— much better than average. E . General working and teaching conditions are very good--much better than the average for a teaching position. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells how good a school system this is to work for. A. It is an excellent system to work for--one of the best organizations I know of. B. It is a good school system tovork for but not one of the best. C. It is only an average school system to work for. Many others are just as good. D . It is below average as a school system to work for. Many others are better. E . It is probably one of the poorest school systems to work for that I know of. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells how your feelings compare with those of other teachers you know. A. I dislike my job much more than most teachers dislike theirs. B. I dislike my job more than most teachers dislike theirs. C. I like my job about as much as most teachers like theirs. D . I like my job better than most teachers like theirs. E . I like my job much better than most teachers like theirs. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells how you feel about the work you do in connection with your teaching job. A. The work I do is very unpleasant, Idislike it. B. The work I do is not pleasant. C. The work is "just about average." I don't have D. The work is pleasant and enjoyable. E. The work is very enjoyable. I like very much to do the work. Check one of the following statements to show how much of the time you are satisfied with your teaching job. A. Most of the time. B. A good deal of the time. C. About half the time. D. Occasionally. E. Seldom. 131 8. Check one of the following statements which best tells how you feel about changing your teaching job. A. I would quit this teaching job at once if I had anything else to do. B. I would take almost any other job in which I could earn as much money. C. This teaching job is as good as the average and I would just as soon have it as any other for the same money. D. I am not eager to change teaching jobs but would do so if I could make more money. E. I do not want to change teaching jobs even for more money because this is a good one. 9. Suppose you had a very good friend who has interests very similar to your own interests and you know of a vacancy in this school system which your friend is well qualified for, would you: A. Recommend this system as a good one to work for. B. Recommend this system but caution your friend about its shortcomings. C. Tell your friend about the vacancy but not anything else; then let her decide whether to apply or not. D. Tell your friend about the vacancy but suggest that she look for other vacancies elsewhere before applying. E . Try to discourage your friend from applying by telling the bad things about the system. 10. On the line below, place a check mark to show how well satisfied you are with this job. Place your check mark anywhere on the line either above one of the statements or between them. Completely More dissatisfied dissatisfied than satisfied About half and half More satisfied than not Completely satisfied APPENDIX C ORIGINAL FORM OF THE BULLOCK JOB SATISFACTION SCALE APPENDIX C ORIGINAL FORM OF THE BULLOCK JOB SATISFACTION SCALE Bullock Job Satisfaction Scale^ The following statements show some of the ways people feel about the work they do. In each item, please put a check mark in front of the statement which most accurately and honestly tells how you feel about your job. 1. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells how good a job you have. A. The job is an excellent one, very much above the average. B. The job is a fairly good one. C. The job is only average. D . The job is not as good as average in this kind of work. E . The job is a very poor one, very much below the average in this kind of work. 2. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best describes your feelings about your job. A. I am very happy and satisfied on this job. B. I am fairly well satisfied on this job. _C. I am neither satisfied nor dissatisfied— it is just an average job. D. I am a little dissatisfied on this job. E. I am very dissatisfied and unhappy on this job. Adapted from Robert P. Bullock, Research Monograph No. 7 0 , Copyright 19 52. By permission of the author and the Ohio State Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University. 132 133 3. Check one of the following which best describes any general conditions which affect your work or comfort on this job. A. General working conditions are very bad. B. General working conditions are poor--not so good as the average for this kind of job. C. General working conditions are about average-neither good nor bad. D . In general, working conditions are good--better than average. E . General working conditions are very good— much better than the average for this kind of job. 4. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells how good an organization it is to work for. A. It is an excellent organization to work for— one of the best organizations I know of. B. It is a good organization to work for but not one of the best. C . It is only an average organization to work for. Many others are just as good. D . It is below average as an organization to work for. Many others are better. E . It is probably one of the poorest organizations to work for I know of. 5. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells how your feelings compare with those of other people you know. A. I dislike my job much more than most people dislike theirs. B. I dislike my job more than most people dislike theirs. C. I like my job about as well as most people like theirs. D. I like my job better than most people like theirs. 6. Place tells A. B. C. a check mark in front of the statement which best how you feel about the work you do on your job. The work I do is very unpleasant. I dislike it. The work I do is not pleasant. The work is "just about average." I don't have any particular feeling about whether it is pleasant or not. D . The work is pleasant and enjoyable. E . The work is very enjoyable. I very much like to do the work called for on this job. 134 7. Check one of the following statements to show how much of the time you are satisfied with your job. A. Most of the time. B. A good deal of the time. C . About half of the time. D. Occasionally. E. Seldom. 8. Check one of the following statements which best tells how you feel about changing your job. A. I would quit this job if I had anything else to do. B. I would take almost any other job in which I could earn as much as I am earning here. C. This job is as good as the average and I would just as soon have it as any other for the same money. D. I am not eager to change jobs but would do so if I could make more money. E . I do not want to change jobs even for more money because this is a good one. 9. Suppose you had a very good friend who is looking for a job in your line of work and you know of a vacancy in this organization which your friend is well qualified for. Would you: A. Recommend this job as a good one to apply for. B. Recommend this job but caution your friend about its shortcomings. C. Tell your friend about the vacancy but not anything else, then let her decide whether to apply or not. D. Tell your friend about the vacancy but suggest that she look for other vacancies elsewhere before applying. E . Try to discourage your friend from applying by telling the bad things about the job. 10. On the line below, place a check mark to show how well satisfied you are with this job. You may place your check mark anywhere on the line either above one of the statements or between them. ________I___________ 1 _______ I __________ I _______1 I Completely dissatisfied More dissatisfied than satisfied About half and half More satisfied than not Completely satisfied APPENDIX D COVER LETTER FOR INSTRUMENT 135 MICHIGAN STATE U N I V E R S I T Y EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN 48823 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION • DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION • ERICKSON HALL January 23, 1972 Dear y o u r name Is one of 100 which has been randomly selected from a list of approximately 1500 regular and special education teachers. You are being aslced to co-operate in a research study involving both regular and special education teachers. Little is known about the differences between special education teachers and regular eduoatlon teachers. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to oompare regular education teachers grades 1-6 and teaoners of the eduoable mentally retarded grades 1-6 on such variables as job satisfaction, personality traits, attitude toward employer and attitude toward the profession of teaching. Also, the study will determine which of these variables are associated with satisfaction in teaching. Please note the small sample in relation to the large population it represents; therefore, your co-operation is a crucial determinant in the success or failure of this study. lUo insure spontaneous responses, your participation in the study is completely anonymous. All data will be treated statistically and no specific individual or school district will in any way be identified with the results. Within 10-14 days after you return the questionnaire the two Gordon personality inventories will be returned to you. You may find it interesting to see the pattern of your personality traits. If you would like a summary of the study sent to you in the Spring, please indicate this on the first sheet of the questionnaire. I realize completing a questionnaire of this nature is an imposition on your time; therefore, as a small token of my appre­ ciation the numbers of all respondents will be placed in a bowl and three numbers will be drawn. Each of the three respondents whose number is drawn will receive $10.00. Enough said I As soon as the tests are returned to you and the three winners drawn the mailing list will be destroyed. Of course, the list is confidential and only I will have access to it. It would be appreciated if you could return the questionnaire within a few days. If you have any further questions regarding the questionnaire do not hesitate to write, or call me collect at 517-355-0925. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, ^iouYdhuj $ Enclosures: 1 Questionnaire 1 Return Envelope U a Jh ^ < _ Stanley/J. Urban, Doctoral Candidate Approved by Associate Professor/ APPENDIX E LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS AWARDED THE MONETARY INCENTIVE APPENDIX E LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS AWARDED THE MONETARY INCENTIVE 1418 F Spartan Village March 7, 1972 East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Dear Recently you participated in a research study which compared regular education elementary teachers and elementary level teachers of the educable mentally retarded. The letter which accompanied the questionnaire indicated that three participants would be randomly selected and awarded $10.00 each for their co-operation. I am pleased to tell you that you are one of the three participants selected to be awarded $10.00. Enclosed is a check for this amount. Kindly cash it at your earliest convenience. My sincere thanks for your help in this study. Sincerely, Stanley Urban 136 APPENDIX F EFFECT OF INCENTIVES ON ROLE OF RETURN OF MAILED QUESTIONNAIRES APPENDIX F EFFECT OF INCENTIVES ON ROLE OF RETURN OF MAILED QUESTIONNAIRES In order to assess the importance of the telephone calls and the monetary incentive on the rate of return of the mailed questionnaires a survey of the participants was conducted. This was accomplished with a letter containing an explanation of the purpose of the study and an enclosed self-addressed post card which contained the following items: 1. Personal contact with the investigator influenced my decision to participate in this study. Yes 2. No Undecided The possibility of receiving payment for my par­ ticipation influenced my decision to participate in this study. Yes No Undecided The instructions which accompanied the post card asked the teachers to respond to both statements. 137 The 138 results of the survey presented in tabular form are as follows: Response Item Yes No Statement Number One 26 25 32 Statement Number Two 20 34 29 Undecided Based on the results of this survey, it is the author's opinion that both of the follow-up procedures used in this study were crucial determinants of the high rate of return of the mailed questionnaires. APPENDIX G FOLLOW-UP LETTER SENT TO SUBJECTS WITH UNLISTED PHONE NUMBERS APPENDIX G FOLLOW-UP LETTER SENT TO SUBJECTS WITH UNLISTED PHONE NUMBERS 1418 F Spartan Village East Lansing, Michigan 48823 February 6, 1972 Dear Recently you received a copy of a questionnaire which pertained to a doctoral dissertation designed to compare regular education elementary teachers and elementary teachers of the educable mentally retarded. Because of the small sample of teachers selected throughout the state it is crucial that, if at all possible, I obtain a 100% return. Please recall in my original letter I stated that three respondents would be selected at random and receive $10.00 for their participation; also, that participation is completely anonymous. I realize that filling out a questionnaire of this nature is an imposition on your time. However, it would be deeply appreciated if you would take part in this study which will have significance for special and regular education personnel. Sincerely yours, Stanley J. Urban Doctoral Candidate Special Education Administration 139 APPENDIX H LETTER ACCOMPANYING RETURN OF PERSONALITY TESTS APPENDIX H LETTER ACCOMPANYING RETURN OF PERSONALITY TESTS March 1, 1972 Dear First allow me to sincerely thank you for your participation in this research study. As promised, your personality tests have been scored and are being returned to you. To assist you in interpreting the results, each personality trait is defined in this letter and your percentile rank for each trait has been plotted in the chart provided on the title page of the test booklet. The norms used for determining your percentile rank were those for the general population of women college students. Interpretation of a percentile rank is very simple and I am sure you have had experience with it on standard­ ized achievement tests. For exa m p l e , in the chart on the front of the Personal Inventory, a college woman who has a score of 27 in 0 (Original Thinking) has a percentile rank equivalent of 71, which means that her score on that scale is exceeded by 29% of the college women in the norm group; in other words, with respect to Original Thinking, this woman's reported concept of herself places her equal to or above about 71% of college women. Now each trait will be defined. Gordon Personal Profile Ascendancy (A) Those individuals who are verbally ascendant, who adopt an active role in the group, who are self-assured 140 141 and assertive in relationships with others, and who tend to make independent decisions, score high on this Scale. Responsibility (R) Individuals who are able to stick to any job assigned them, who are persevering and determined, and who can be relied on, score high on this Scale. Emotional Stability (E) High scores on this Scale are generally made by individuals who are well-balanced, emotionally stable, and relatively free from anxieties and nervous tension. Sociability (S) High scores are made by individuals who like to be with and work with p e o p l e , and who are gregarious and sociable. Gordon Personal Inventory Cautiousness (C) Individuals who are highly cautious, who consider matters very carefully before making decisions, and do not like to take chances or run risks, score high on this Scale. Original Thinking (0) High scoring individuals like to work on difficult problems, are intellectually curious, enjoy thoughtprovoking questions and discussions, and like to think about new ideas. Personal Relations (P) High scores are made by those individuals who have great faith and trust in people, and are tolerant, patient, and understanding. Vigor (V) High scores on this Scale characterize individuals who are vigorous and energetic, who like to work and move rapidly, and who are able to accomplish more than the average person. You may recall that in my initial letter I stated that three respondents would be selected randomly and paid $10.00 for their participation in the study. I am sorry to say you were not selected. However, three subjects were selected and each awarded $10.00 Again, a sincere thank you for your help and interest. If you have requested a summary of the study it will be mailed to you in May. Sincerely yours, Stanley Urban APPENDIX I FORMULA FOR TESTING HOMOGENEITY OF REGRESSION FUNCTIONS APPENDIX I FORMULA FOR TESTING HOMOGENEITY OF REGRESSION FUNCTIONS In order to determine whether each variable had the same relative importance in predicting job satisfaction for regular education teachers and teachers of the educable mentally retarded, the separate regression equations for the two groups were compared for homogeneity. Since the test for homogeneity of regressions is not very common, a brief explanation of the principles and procedures involved is appropriate. The reader is strongly encouraged to refer to Wilson and Carry (1969) for a complete discussion of this procedure. In essence homogeneity of regression asks if there is significant variation in the two vectors of beta weights associated with the independent variables (Wilson & Carry, 196 9) in the two groups of teachers. The test of homogeneity of regressions estimates the residual sum of squares in two ways. First, the sum of squares is estimated by using the pooled regression 143 144 weights; then the same sum of squares is estimated by using regression weights determined for each group separately. Let the former be SS^ and the latter be SS 2 . The difference between the two sums of squares (SS^ - SS 2 ) is obtained and used to test the significance of differ­ ence in regression by a likelihood ratio 1969). (Wilson & Carry, The ratio is given by: (ss1 - ss2 ) (g-l)p SS2 . (n-g-gp) where n= the number of cases in all groups combined g= the number of groups being compared p= the number of predictor variables SS^ = the residual sum of squares for the pooled regression weights SS 2 = the sum of the residual sums of squares determined for each group separately When the null hypothesis that the regression weights in the population are the same is true, this ratio has a sampling distribution which can be approximated by an F distribution freedom with (g-1).p and (Wilson & Carry, 1969, p. 84). (n- g-g.p) degrees of It was this ratio that was employed to test the homogeneity of regression of the two groups in this study. APPENDIX J SIMPLE CORRELATIONS REGULAR EDUCATION TEACHERS APPENDIX J SIMPLE CORRELATIONS, REGULAR EDUCATION TEACHERS (N=40) . * *■> . . Dl.O J . 1 y '* } J . S7 1 0 0 4 •> ■* 145 ■> * ) o - *' ‘. 7 < ?7 iM :, s3 •. :*> 2 i o 0 . 2-* J ’ : 1 . 2 J J -2 - ! . J? J j > •J. J3> o u . in j 3 » . 5 ? 4 7o A 1’ 1 • J ) v JJ 1 .1 3 7 M •j *«? J6 0,2*546 0 . 1 ^ 75 0 . J I’ * •3#*'? 1 3 I*5 - 0 . 1 1 Q1 ? 3 1 , 0 ‘ JC 0 J , 0 7 230 j . 57593 - 0 . Cic 3 6 l J , 41 9 ? o 0 , 0?C79 0 , 3 ' * 6 C9 -J.U1749 * J ,U s1 78 • J , 0 p6 4 2 3,15355 7 r-?r i . co( or -r.siroi r ,5171° ;■. C 9 r 7 7 ,16(3! r. , C 9 ? 3 7 f , 16426 C . C 4 1 « ‘; i1 , 0 6 7 3 1 4 SfC 1 • Cu w 0 0 •C . C 2 7 6 6 t .469:4 C. 1 1 6 7 6 t . 32579 o.r?3‘ c - c . : i 778 -1.29673 • 1 ,19904 c 34.T l . f 'C O O r 0.3C62r 0.3727] -0.64514 C. 1 6 8 1 ' 0 . l& l4p -0.01094 - C , C596; 6 0RIG l.COOOO 0.04775 0.39448 0.04067 0.0*576 -0.23443 -0.16752 7 P£9R 1.00000 0,45760 0.15032 0.07230 -0.12151 -0.21751 8 V IG 1,00000 0,00042 0.13836 -0,32113 -0.21341 9 JOBS 1,00000 -0,55191 0 . 54490 0,03660 10 E mq 1,00000 •0.*T110 -0,49862 11 EHPC 1.30003 J . 79790 12 o-nj »1 = Ascendancy; 2 = Responsibility; 3 = Emotional Stability; 4 = Sociability; 5 = Cautiousness; 6 = Original Thinking; 7 - Personal Relations; 8 = vigor; 9 = Job Satisfaction; 10 = Employee Orientation; 11 = Employee Deprivation; 12 = Professional Orientation; 13 = Professional Deprivation. 1 . IJjOO 13 PROS APPENDIX K SIMPLE CORRELATIONS SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS APPENDIX K SIMPLE CORRELATIONS, SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS . joi -n .- M .U . >2 * . 71 0-i4 . . 3 3 51? • 25 '6 , 5? '5 ,1 'P ? .-M ill . i 7V5 1 5 1.335)) n.4»;j3 3 . 2 5 a 47 9 .7 7 9 5 4 9 . l l ’ ?’ (1. 1 H O ’ j. 9.25419 j . 15232 0.1443? -.). )43*5 > 9FS’ " 1.00000 -0.1,26 0 0.3:250 3.i:o?i 3 , 3'.'4F 1 - 0 . 1 7 9C0 0.2:543 - o . 2 2 i <7 3 . 15605 0.1-401 0.06213 7 F*FT i .ooroc -0.26716 C . 2 5 = 76 C.25,-07 C.59256 C. 4 4 2 6 1 -r . 0 2 2 0 4 r , 10665 t . 0 4 5 2= -r ,i4r3'4 src i.cocoo C ■1 5 6 3 5 C .231=5 C .12157 0 . Cl 1 1 7 - C . 12fcQ4 0.11526 0.11251 C.C6t7o i; ,-*ut (N=42) l.r.ooon 9.4795? 0.63011 0;48927 •0.25R9i 0 ; 3362i 9.2291= -9,05545 6 OS It, 1.00090 0.29239 0.44069 -0.12223 0,2=957 0.09041 -0.12647 7 P£PR 1.00900 0.51366 9 .9 0117 0.15054 0.16677 -0.10165 8 Vt G 1 .0 0 0 0 0 *0.05543 0.10154 0.06891 •0,30422 9 1.80000 -0,1913* •0.30555 -0,09744 -0,26383 10 11 JOBS fcNQ 1 .0 0 0 0 0 •0.00>05 ENPC 1.11)90 J , 96433 12 B4)3 1.91303 13 PROD APPENDIX L SIMPLE CORRELATIONS, COMBINED GROUPS OF TEACHERS r APPENDIX L SIMPLE CORRELATIONS, COMBINED GROUPS OF TEACHERS 1 ;> 3 « 5 147 ft ■y 0 a 10 11 1? 13 l.CoiV;o 0.14522 0.27769 0.72574 -C .O f'23 U .53626 0.25127 0.3=516 0.29336 -C.1151? 1.16153 0,16579 0 . 1 ’ 365 l . - r ; C0 C . 5 1 ’ 55 0.21:30.4246'' 0.15331 0.23601 0.25742 C.21656 -9.'915' 0.133P" -0.1479? - 0 . 1 2107 1 as; 2 RFS6 1 , SO c o p - C .01671 C .41563 0.C191O 0.35901 -0.07445 0,2=446 -0.1.760 C• C479o -c.u75->7 c . 10441 T =mst 1,00000 0 -0,2950 9 .3776? C .16547 C. 5 1 0 4 9 C, 2 7 6 0 3 .03519 C . 11=61 0.95201 -0,03107 4 soc 0 1.03000 C.0 9 3 6 1 C. 3 2 2 5 4 t .10249 „.147]7 -C .05634 0.11523 -C.15266 - t .10299 5 Ci ' JT (N-82) 1.00000 0,39390 0,49636 0.15909 -0.03906 0.2453= 0.07204 -0.06516 ORIG 6 I . 00000 0.12902 0.34040 -0.04014 0.15697 -0.09223 -0.13519 7 PERR 1.00000 0.47053 0.08337 ,08966 0.00321 -0.14133 0 6 VlG 1,00000 •0.01829 0.07430 •0,17246 •0,20202 i.eoooo •0,36183 o;10287 •0,00846 9 JOBS EMO 10 t.itiei -P,42*6* •P.42740 11 eppc 1.00000 0.72359 12 PR00 l.oodoc 13 PROD