THE PORTEUS HAZE $57 AND PERSONAE. EFFECWVENESS AS FREDSCTORS OF Eg‘tPLOYABELETY As‘alflf‘ie MENTALLY RETARDED ADGLESCENTS Thesis Po! the Dagree of i‘é. A. Pv‘liCHiGfiLN $?A?§ UNWERSWY Saivawre fiambam W53 LIBRARY ‘ Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 6/01 c:ICIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15 ABSTRAC r3 THE PORTEUS HAZE TEST 'HD PBRSOHAL EFFE TIVEHESS AS PAADITTOAS OF EZZDLOYAB IL I’LY ALI 13G IIEIIT ALLY A»W:° ADOLA"cA“m“ L“J.L“.-L 3 “UV-Ad; -0 1 by Salvatore Gamoaro The Porteus Haze Test (PET) and a Rating Scale of Personal Effectiveness (3323) were used as predictors of the employ- ability of mentally retarded adolescents. The PIT was admiimi ter ed to 71 mentally retarded adoles- *1 cents, ranging from 16 to 19 years of age. All the as were ttending high school in the Specia Education Department of an, and working part time as employees in a s.ecial work training program. Forty of the 71 Se had been in the trainiig program previous to September, 1962 and formed the Critical Score (CS) sample. The 31 remaining.§s had been in the program since September, 1962 and formed the Replication (R) sample. A RSPE was filled out on each S by his teacher. It was scored to yield a total weighted rating score for each S, These scores were used in all analyses involvi‘i“ the RSPE. The scale items have to do with specific and general personal characteristics presumed to reflect voca 'tional potential of mentally retarded adolescents. Salvatore Gambaro Employers also filled out a RSPE for each of the Se in his employ. The ratings were independent of the teacher's, and neither party knew the other was rating the Ss. On their rating sheet for a S.the employers also checked an item which asked whether or not they would hire the‘S if a job were available. This employability item was the criterion measure. Although the employers filled out the entire rating sheet, only the criterion measure item on their sheets was used in data analysis. The critical score on the PET was empirically derived so as to give maximum success in prediction. Correct prediction was possible for 78 per cent of the CS Ss. The relative pro- portion of false negatives was somewhat less than the relative prOportion of false positives. Using the same critical score for the R sample, it was possible to predict correctly for 74 per cent of the Ss. The relative prOportion of false negatives was again somewhat less than the relative proportion of false positives. It was concluded that the PET did particularly well in predicting when an employer would hire a S, but not so well in predicting when he would not. A critical score was also established with the RSPE. For the CS and R groups, respectively, it was possible to correctly determine for 85 and 90 per cent of the Ss whether or not they would be hired. These somewhat higher overall hit rates are not significantly different from those obtained with the PET. Salvatore Gambaro Further examination of the data showed that better pre- diction was obtained for Se scoring above than for those scoring below the critical value on either one of the scales. In addition, almost perfect prediction was obtained by using the more stringent standard of scoring above or below the critical value on‘SgSh scales. It seems clear that the PET and RSPE might profitably be used as screening devices in work training programs such as that involved in the present study. The PIT could be used to select those who will initially enter the program, and the teachers' ratings on the RSPE could be obtained early in the program and used for final selection. In the present study, if the standard set for remaining in the program was a score above the cri ical value on both the PET and RSP3,perfect prediction could be obtained regarding who would be hired. Data were not collected that would allow some kind of quantification of savings--e.g., cost, time, or efficiency of training--to be derived by screening out those who would later prove to be unhirable. It seems certain, however, that an appreciable and worthwhile savings might accrue by instituting both scales in a screening procedure. A closing note of tentativeness is necessary concerning the criterion used. It can be considered a fair and adequate measure of employability only to the extent that the employer's judgment is a fair and adequate measure of employability, Salvatore Gambaro and only to the extent that he does what he says he will do Approved: WV m a/ Chairman, Thesis Committee Date: /Mz, ff/IL/féj’ / THE PORTEUS KAZE TEST “VD PL RSOLAL DEFECTIVEKESS AS PREDICTCAS OF EMPLOYABILITY AHOEG HEHTALLY RETARDED ADOLES BITS 3y Salvatore Gambaro A TEES Submitted to Hichigan State University in partie 1 fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of T'L'TC'F'W'J‘D ‘1 Anne L‘aua- J— ‘J‘L. «L :AJ-KJ- U College of Social Science Departmen it of Psychology H \O C\ KN ~ 1 (\‘fi (,1) «j ‘-\ ‘\ ‘k- ‘ ~ ‘\ K.\ A N’f‘f" ~_. *1 i m? "21‘, “n (W [Lt/Lu. Il-IJIJDU-‘-.U;£ .L. D The author would like to thank the members of his connittee, Drs. Alfred Dietz and Henry Smith for their time, interest and F10 suggestions contributed to this study. Grat tude is expressed to Dr. Harvin Kaplan for his encouragement in the study and his contribution of the materials involved. Particular gratitude is expressed to Dr. Robert Echichael, chairman of the committee, whose patience and guidance, partic- ularly in the area of experimental design, proved invaluable in the preparation and completion of this study. Last, but not least, the author wishes to thank his wife, Karcelle, whose good cheer and support added to the endeavor. ‘1. .9 ““T‘M‘ iAAhD ‘F CCFTEL- ' J “G Ll" " 1"‘7:""‘ TRCJNT 7") CW,“ 'fl ”T77" ">er 5. ‘ D '73 ‘1‘ C? "u A ”T ““7 #12V‘LJJ. LN..- .' Lila; -g... It.-.' -L—JU—J4:_.\.U-L o o o o o o P ‘1’ o ‘ " ;~ .JJJAJJ; o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ‘r-fi; .-.. - _ H _;<:—\ I‘ 1: I ' as...“ J. -- U 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C S‘d.-‘O:ects O O O O O O O O O O O O O a - 4 4- 4 \“ .—. . "1 ' 1 , 1 - _-‘| 4 -- q a critic l occie (es) and Replication S e :0 Q o o o o o o o o v"; I (D CD (7 (—1 H H (D (7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O Porteus Iaz Test (Phi) . . . . . . f Personal Effectivenes e Ratin; Scale 0 J t 1‘“ 1 g o v nmployaolti Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It d gig id O'\ O .1\ Vt 7:? '— 73 3'" ”J "A T." ”‘1 If. C} .LLJJJ. .LJ-LL.‘.JJ.'o‘ VHU o o APRLRDICLS . . F10 H. I...“ 1‘4 “J "QO‘xb I x ‘O l; EH ()0 n C. [U 43.: PD '1 Ch Comparison of PEP Score Employers' Judgment for Comparison of RSPD Sco _ _ v a, " ,wm‘ _ nmPlOEGrS UUQQUGHL for v hiarisons of PIE-RSPE -- . .i .. . e amployeis Judgment ior of PEP Score s Judgment for "‘ r : —1 ‘-‘_L“'{:1‘:' ‘1 m: cohoa loch of hard Score Poslt ~ 7 r'u' 1,..- ~ " CV ‘ . Employers Juabnent ior R ‘uo n r- ' .~. D ’.'='."\ 2‘. ”; C-’ -. oonpariLOn: oi Phi-horn uCOle “‘-. -— -., l “ - 4— .o A e- 1 - nnplo,e s uudvnent lor 3 Sun; :1 1‘1 ‘i ALL; T 1‘! JAJJZJ "W A U Position CS Subjects Score P I O Sition and Subjects eild Pa“ "'L, ll 15 14 BACKGROUND OF T330;D Y “”D RESEI. H Assessments of learning and adaptive c apabi 1i tie es of pi C {a H as to O {'3 retarded children are difficult operations. Ia ml and Gladwin (1958), and ha55ard (1954) have shown that instru- ments such as the Stanford-Binet and the Uechsler-Bellevue may prove im1 dequate for the task. As Baldwin (IcClelland, Baldwin, Bronfenbrenner and Stodbech, 1958) remarks, in trying to describe specific abilities, one is actually trying to identify systems of adaptive behavior. horeover, ability cannot be considered to be unidimensional, as there may be a variety of ways of accomplishin5 the sar e result. Early in the century, Porteus (1959) su55ested a reason for the discrepancy between measured intelli5ence and adaptive behavior by criticizing misting intelligence scales. He maintained that the major weakness of all commonly used intelligence tests was their failure to measure ”planfulness" or "prehearsal". He felt that this capacity was essential to most practical life situations and that the failure of the tests to provide this measure results in faulty diagnosis or evaluation of the individual. Porteus (1959) stated that, "A necessary component of a basic intelligence index 's a measure of planfulness,” and that " . . . no dia5nos tic examination should be considered complete without some measure of planfulness [‘0 as an essential factor in intelligence? (p. 22). Porteus has offered his series of mazes as a measure of "foresight," "planfulness" or "practical adaptability." he has defined fiplanfulness" as "the ability to put to prudent use what planning ability we possess." Among others, Guilford (1956) has presented evidence that is in at least partial support of Porteus'claims concerning what his mazes measure. In this connection he states, "Porteus has maintained that his series of maze tests measure foresight. He can well claim support from the factor analysis just mentioned. The type of foresight measured by maze tests, however, is of a concrete variety. This ability may be impor- tant for the architect, the engineer, and the industrial layout planner. It may not be found in the political strategist and the policy maker. So far as our results go, the Haze Test should by no means be offered as a test of general intelli- gence." (Guilford, 1956, p. 273). In a doctoral dissertation concerned with planning as a non-intellective component of intelligent behavior, Small (1954) also concluded that his results confirmed and supported Porteus' claims that the Mazes measure a personality or non-intellective characteristic of intelligence not encompassed by standard intelligence tests and that this feature could meaningfully be called foresight. Other studies dealing with the Mazes have not been directly concerned with what underlying ability the Mazes measure, but rather with their predictive or discriminative Alf-J "\ ‘Kfl.’ ' A .u k2! capability. Gibbons (1943), for XCAal ,using a special method of scoring, demoAstrated the us ?_7 ess of th1 1 Test in choosing fore men in an inlistrial concern. Docter and hinder (1954), using a method of qualitative scoring of th Iaz‘s, present data whicn indic:2 be that the Porteus haze effectively discriminates groups of delimiqu nt boys from non- delinquent boys. And Dzntler and Heckler (1962) have used the Haze Test as a predictor of several ty jies of functionins abilities of retarded clfli dren iZnOnA to be pertinent to life in an inst ti tution; namely, language Obili physical surroundings and social naturitV. The Environmental Zap Tests, the Parson' s Tan ua e Sample and Dolls' Virelsnd Social Haturity Sc ‘1) \ 1e were use ed, ;=snective1y, as criteiia for these functionin 3ilitie:3. Dentler and Hackler concluded that, for hree out of four subjects, the Porteus Haze was an excellent predictor of level of functioning as measured by these three scales. ht present, it seems clear hat the Porteus Haz Test may effectively measure a factor or factors important in a number measured, although not , seems to involve behavior sequences which ¢ can best be described as fores 'hi U *1. PROBLEM The present investiration is best described as an empirical prediction study. It was conceened with the use of the Porteus Haze Test as a predictor of employability of mentally retarded adolescents. The question prompting the study was, "Can a critical score be derived on the Porteus Haze Test that will separate those retardates who will later be hired from those who will not?” The predictive relationship between rated personal charac- Iteristics and employability was also investigated. Compa‘ison of this relationship with that of the Porteus Test and employ- ability makes it possible to evaluate whether the better selection procedure would be to use the Porteus Test alone or in combination with another instrument. IETHOD Subjects 1e gs were 71 mentally retarded adolescents-~25 girls and 46 boys. Their age range was from 16 to 19 years. This sample constituted all of those from a Lansing Special Educa- tion Department pepulation of S4, for whom complete and usable test information was obtained.1 All of the gs were in a work- eXperience program for the mentally handicapped (i.e., IQ score 50-79) in Operation at the high school level in the Lansing Public Schools. Students in this program go to school on a part time basis and work part time with employers cooper- ating in the program. The Special Education Department maintains classes in three high schools in the city of Lansing, and every §_attends that school which is geographically closest to his home. Critical Score (CS) and Replication (3) Samples: The 40 gs who had been in the work-experience program prior to September, 1At the beginning of the study there were 62 different employers and 84 possible §s. Thirteen of the possible 84 53 could not be included in the study as: 2 dropped out of the program and could not be tested, 3 had unusable rating sheets because of misunderstood instructions, and S employers failed to return rating sheets. O\ ,— \ 1962 formed the CS sample. The remaining 31 Se had been in the work-experience program since September, 1962 and formed the R sample. Keasures Porteus Haze Test (PIT): The PET was administered to each 5, and scored in accordance with the instructions set forth by Porteus (1959). A mental ase score was derived and then U converted into a test quotient. The test uotient was the ,9 score used in all analyses. (‘1 "\ RatingpScale of Personal Effectiveness (RoPn): Personal effectiveness was assessed by a rating scale devised by Warren (1961) for use with mentally retarded adolescents. The scale is made up of 16 i ems, the items having to do with such characteristics as punctuality, c00perativeness, and showing initiative. (See Appendix A.)2 A RSPE was filled out on each §.by both his teacher and employer. Deither party knew that the other party was also filling out a rating scale on the S, The teacher rated the'g on each item in relation to his average student in the program, 2The relationship between scores on the PET and each item on the RSPE was determined in a pilot study. There was a high positive relationship between the PIT and ten of the items, a low positive relationship between the PIT and five of the items, and no relationship between the PET and three of the items. The results are presented in Appendix B. and the employer in relation to his average employee. For ten the S was to be rated as "less than," "so ame as," F). each or "more than" the average student or employee.3 .1. In order b0 avoid obvious contamination of the criterion .1. measure, only the teachers' ratings were scored for use in I? A.) a data analjsr is. The n5 ras scored to yield a total weighted .4 rating score for each 3. For any item "less than" ratilgs _, .1. H were assigned a WBiShUGd score of 1, "same as a score of 2, and I'more than” a score of 3. The minimum possible score was 18 and tAe maximum 54. .1. nAplolabilit‘: At the bottom of the hSPE sheet, employers checked one of four categ ries--Yes, Probably, Probably not, "'ould you be willing to hire Lo--in r epons to the question, tiis individual as you would your average applicant, if a job were available?" This employaoility item we the criterion measure. Those gs ior whom the employer checked either "Yes" or ”probably” were classed together under melo vaole. Those s for whom the en ployer checked either "Probably not” or "L0' lo: ‘_J__A were classed together ur der Lot Ennlgyable Procedure PIT: The Porteus Test was administered to each §_in a private of ice of the school which he was attending. '2 JIn the pilot study the teacher and employer ratings correlated .94, indicating a rather high degree of inter- rater agreement. Eggp, it the head of each group of Special Education studs; in the three hi h schools is a teacher. Besides teachin3 he has a regular time set aside each day for counselin3 and placement. He obtains employment for the students wit h an employer willing to COOperate in the pr03ram, and maintains close communication with the employer in order to saure the d o o & students' work pr03ress. The three tee chers were asked to '4) l,. 10 ll out a ratiL3 sheet on each of their student-trai nees. They were given a form letter (seef endix C) which described t1.1e project and gave ir structions on hOTI to fill in the rating sheet. In the form letter they were informed that their responses would be used in a research project and, therefore, were encouraged to be as objective as possibl~. They were also reassured that their ratin would in no way influence thelg school or job standing. Every employer was sent a ratins sheet with his employee s U fl name on it, a copy of another form letter (see Appendix D), and a stamped addressed envelOpe for the return of the rating sheet. The form letter sent to the employer I s the same as that given I]. l..Jo 0'»? to the teacher-coordinator except for sli3ht changes of phras to make it more apprOpriate to the work si tuation. Particularly in the case of the employers was re ssurance called for concern- ing the student-trair ee's job standing, since every mployer had previously signed a work- trainin3 a3reement with the school specifying that he would keep the trainee employed for one year. Although the employer rated the §|on every item, only 1 nis response to the criterion measure item was used in data analysis. Data Collection and Analysis: The stews in data collection were the same for alllfis. During the time tne rating scales were bein3 filled out and returned by the teachers and employers, the investigator administered and scored the PET for all the‘fis. After all the rating sheets were returned, or otherwis accounted for, they were scored. The scored protocols for both the PET and RSPL were then identified as F}. belonsing to a part cular §.in either the CS or R 3roups. The data were subsequently assembled and ana yzed separately for first th CS and then the 3 sample. ‘- There were no sex or age differences on either the PET or RSPE. Therefore, sex and age were disregarded in all analyses. Fisher Exact Probability Tests and one-ta iled rejection re3ions were used for all compaiis ons (Sie3el,1956). The p values reported are e: :act probabilities. The results for the CS sample are most conveniently a. considered first, then the results for the R sample. 08 Sample PIT: A score of 113 on the PET gave: a:i11m success in dis- crimination. Table I pres ts the summary data. The entries in the cells in this and following tables are number ofI§s. A Fisher anct Probability Test yields a p value of .007. The .0. sin employers indicate they would hire 78 per cent of the [m t S'mple, and although correct placement does not occur for l\4 '- 10 O) {D 100 per cent of the cases, it HI FJ. m *6 '“5 (D ssively frequent. On the basis of their PIT score 32 out of 40 as are correctly placed with respect to whether or not they would be hired. Inspection of the data in Table I also shows that the hi t rate is relatively better within the meloyable than it is within the Hot Emp lo yable .f‘ cate3ory; or, in other words, the relative proportion of false ne atives withi; the Employable category is less than the r‘ U 10 11 relative preportion of false positives within the I‘Wo Employ- able category. TABLE I 007.39.113.13 0:? ran SCORE POS 19:10:: .431) Eaton-3.9 JUDGIEZT FOR cs SUBJECTS "fl‘v‘ ‘-.'— '-—Jn‘n_‘m PIT Score anloyers' Judgrme t Position Enployable Lot Lhiplw able Above ll} 26 5 Below 113 5 6 REPS: In determinine the critical rat ns score the teacher U Q g for each s was used. A critical score of 33.5 on the RSPE was maximally effective in dis cr miqetlns those who were ihely to be hired or not. The probability associated with a set of observations as or more e: :treme than those in Table 2 is .00050 Correct pla cernent is again impressively freouent; viz., 55 out of 40 gs are correctly classified. In comparison to the corresponding HT data, the relative preportion of false negatives is about the same while the relative prepor- tion of false positive sdrOps a bit. PIT and RTPE: A brief re- examination of Tables I and 2 shows that better prediction is obtained for those gs scoring above than for those scoring below the critical score on either -,_.. the PET or RSP L. This 18 due to a positive skewinr of the A. Q m A L H [0 ”WT 5.43.4 w . _ V ~. '1 1f:- , 3- --\- ' COIPARISOJ OF RSPE SCORE PODITIOD ‘ D DIPL YERS JU-GIEET Fol? CS SUBJECT" DSPE Score anloy ers' Judgment Position Duolo Cole Iot Enlloyable H 27 CD two score dis In a (:q' tile .3. C‘ L) bled score posit JD: Inspection of Part A of double standard results in pe scoring above or belgy the or both the false positives and based on the data presented in P ma .hC/c ble 3 tile data have been assem- ion on both the PI3 and PEPE. Table 3 shows that using the rfect placement of those gs itical values (i.e., eliminates false n ives). A Fisher Test art A gives a p value of .OOOOl. The set of differences observed in Part B is not statistically sigr ificant, indicating that scoring above the critical value on the REPS nd below: on the PI? is not sitmii ic antl" more ligely to result in being co: sidered emp olo oye ble than scoring above on the FIT and below on the ESPE. RSa: nple PIE: Having esttblis hed critical scores on the PIT an RSPE with the CS sample, the next question was Whether or not these scores would continue to be prognostic with a new sample of gs. 13 ’7 IABLE 3 COX “plucao 0? PK:- 33 E SCODD OSIfl 1 .J. DILL‘YTRS' JUDGYDil IO; 05 SUDJECES 'IT-RSPD Score Dmployers' Judgment Position Dmoloreole Not Imployable +pnra 22 o +RS D J g; r-J C} +PDB 4 -RSPD KN HT 5 l +-.U3PE aPlus siQn indicates above, a minus sign below, the critical score on the scale. v 1 Eables 4, 5, and 6 present the summary data on file BIL, RSPD, and PI"- bPD, reSpectively, for the El gs in the R sample. The critical score on the PI? derived with the 03 group continues to give a high rate of correct prediction. Inapec- tion of Table 4 shows that correct prediction was obtained for F4) 23 o the El gs, and this overall hit rate is quite c mparable to that observed in the CS sample. A Fisher Test on the set of COI P.’IDO 03‘ P23 DC 1E ‘QoIEIC ETD LIEL‘YDRS' TIT.u_-Dl°3 lin‘ 1 SKI J,as .3 lI-IE Score Irnloyers' Jud mwnit Position ml ogable oo Employa ‘Dle Above 113 15 4 Below 113 4 3 .0 .— observations ir fable 4 gives a p value 0‘ O 15. She employers ndicate they would hire cl per cent of the U) in this sample, F]. I U) a sli ht drOp in tie pronortion from that observed in the CD sample. Although perfect placement of these “s does not occur, K it is relatively frequent; viz., 79 per cent are correctly placed. A further statistical check on the per cate gory hit rate differences for the CS and 3 samples shows that tnev do caLtly. L1. 4 .- so .L,l_)1.1..L not differ U) D: The ori inal critical value on the RSPE also continues Lu Cl I“: l L. c’." O (D l,__l '71. C d a high rate of correct predictions. The probability ed with a set oi observations as or more extreme than l,— J. C.) (1“ assoc those in Table 3 is .000003. Twentv-eight of the total 31 gs are correctly place ed. There are no false positives, and three false negatives. The overall and per category hit rates observed here differ very little from those observed in the 1 CS sample (see Taole 2). Somewhat hi her overall and per category hib rates with the RSPD than trith the P13 again occur with th R sample. COIPARISOI CF RS 3 83 RE PODITIDI DID DIPLOIDRS' JU‘GIDDT FOR R S BJECTS LSPE Score anplorers' Jud ment osition Employable Lot Dmployable Above 33.5 16 0 Below 33.5 12 KM However, the over-all and--e:cept in one instance-~the per .1. cate3ory hit rate differences of the two scales are not st tiS- £0 tically s1'3nificant for either the CS or the R sample. The one exception occurs with the R sample where the hit rate in the Employable category is significantly hi3her using the DSPD (p<:.Ol, as determined by oino:.ial eXpa nsion). U PIT and R 0?— Further inspection of the data in Tables 4 and PJ. 5 indicates that as n the 03 sample better prediction is above or elow 0) obtained in those 1‘1 stances where a g score the critical value on both scales. In Table 6 th data nave been assembled using the gs scorefpos ition on both the PIT and RSPD. The probability associated with a set of observed values s or more extreme than those in Pa rt A of Table 6 is .OOOO3. go ain obtair ed for those "d SB. FJ. 011 l"*) {.10 er ect predict s scoring above I CI] S the cri bica 1 values. Except for one false ne3ative, this would also be the case for those 3s scorinx below tie critical A - U values. CCIPARIBOIS OF PIC-2333 SOCKS POSITICI AI“ ! J ‘ ‘ L ‘ L) UMTDT ‘I'J'D 14-1.1. .LJ .L.._J..g PET-RSPE Score Enploy—rs' Judpnent Position Employable Iot Employable +Pl'i‘a 13 O (m. o ‘1 “'1‘. -33‘-~ l “003‘.“ -iso.J.L.LJ tram :~ .L. “Li. .5) +1312? 2 4 - 9.0.7., ‘RUl .24 -’ 9. A1 *0 r :3 K)! O l I Lu *0 LS + (f aPlus si3n indicates above, a minus si3n below, the critical score on the scale. is with the CS sample it appears from inSpection that pg L 4.1 scorin3 above the critical score on the RSPE and below on the IT are more likely to be jud3ed nirable by the employer. However, the set of ifferences presented I. '3 “ n Par' 9 of Taole 6 FJ. are not si3nificant. In addition, even if tie data from both n .01. +4. rences are still not si3nificant. rule (0 samples are combined the d .L An afiirmative anSHer can be 3iven b0 the question pronpt- li3 this Study, namely, "Can a critical score oe dei iv ed on the Porteus Ias- feet that will sesa ate those retardates who will later be ju13e d hirable from those who will not?” Due reward, 3. - - .G- . . L2 L144... —'-\:~. "Did-m lowever, is called for concern a the liaise Or this aliiria- “*3 c 1' DJ FJ. {Q E C {—1 '54 C 4 tive answer. For example, the criterion measure 0 ca: be conslleied a le3itimate index of enployaoility only tie extent that an employer doe .3 what he says he will do in hirin3. Then, too, before besinnin? to mane 3eneral statements adoleseen t—J’ Ct p (D 0 }_J (D O C P 9 _) O F. about the use of the FIT i retaraates and employment, further studies are necessary "sin3 other samples i: ,_J 0 her trainini settin s and involvin3 other jobs. Some of these limitin33r>oi11 s are, oi course, the kind that anal"r to any piece of rese arcl and are not to be construed as peculiar to the one under riseussion. Rs {4" "7"- r\' 3w ‘ a * v .2 ‘ wry 4'- A '2 - ns SpeCia nduCation Depe: n rants continue to eipa and their school work trainii3 pr03rans, and as the number of potential emulo ers who can he enlisted to coo; ere te in such pr03rams approaches an asymptote, more careful screenin; of those to be trained will be“ come necessary. Given tlis eventuality, th Torteus haze rest mi ht well prove a very helpful screenin" device. The findin s or the pres (D ,3. 4—- .- ,~.-2 J- suudy 3ive SorOLY l7 C}- O c+ s O L (D 3' <; 51) B U) c. k D t.- C I. 10 (”T H‘ C”) s (3 1—1 (0 CI) r1 a be particularly useful as an initial screenin3 instrument. The present research indicates critical score he d been admitted into the p L o 4 0 d p m ‘I traininr nr03ran, 55 per cent of them would have been n £14 re Flo (i.e., jud3ed hirable) by their employers. tial screen mi13 be jud3ed not FJ. S10 uld this hi3h rate of in hi3h enou however, the results for the 13Mci13 scale indicate that if it is used as a supplement to the Porteus Haze Test even further successful screenin3 would be possible. If, in the Tresent study, only those retardates who scored above the critical value on both scales had been admitted into the train- pr03ran, 100 per cent of them would 1% ave been hired (i.e., jud3ed hirable) by their employers. Data were not collected that would allow some kind of 0 O .. quar1t U111ic tion of savin3s-—in terms of cost, time, or efficiency 91') O ‘t q the pr03ram-—to be dem1ved oy screen in3 out those (+- J O .11 ‘ ..L. 1.1. \J i.)- of rain who would later prove to es unhirable. It seems certain, however, that an appreciable and wort 1n rhile savin3s mi3ht accrue m I I :1 m I. o 3 (1‘ m :3 m b3 instituting both scales as screening procedure Haze Test could be used to select those who will ilWi iallv enter the or03ran, and the teachers atin 3 could he obtained early in the trainin3 pr031aa and used for final selection. "' ‘ "w 3‘ —. .--- 7-, 1 - . y.» — 1—- J- (a 3. 3 -- - raw ‘Ir1 r r. ' r r ‘2 ‘ 4“ Assun1h3 he scnool and “th tra1n1n Nro31an 1hvolved 1h bfle present study to be a representative instance of both the situation where there are and a e not test screenin3 procedures 1. use, the 11stance where the tests are in use would provide 0 per cent of \_}J ' ‘ ‘ 'v n u J,‘ N P, —. ‘f‘ ‘- ,rl ‘ "1"“ 1 ‘. '1' 3 7-, J‘ A v- tne .reatese sav1h3s. althou3n approh1nately those who would 1e cons icered hiraole would be screened out ‘ 1 ‘ ‘: '~ -~‘- 4" ‘ ~ 4 r" 4— ,A a. {'1 ‘ w'n .“ ' , J" 1 1 , — v ' ‘, l J‘ ’3 'p " by us1h3 the scales, th1s loss 868mg more than congensated 1c“ ‘ ~ 1A P. 3 'r" .' I (‘1 '1— ‘ ~l V_ 1 ,- ‘41 1-) -- - r‘ ‘1 '2 ‘, ,‘\ 4‘ I by he sav1n3s that would acc1ue Iron screeh1h3 one all (100 per cent) of those who would not be considered Liraole. a" J— - 'fi _. - ‘ . «~ A '1‘ 1 ‘ .- fn A ‘ V P1 1 ‘ :orteus (leg?) has ar3ued the t the haze 1est measures 13 not cov r-d y Other psy holo 3ical 1e has c1-nn10hed the use of the word 1ores13ht as a label for the abilities test is neasurin3, they are consilercd to offer add tional susstadtiation 1or the claim that the test is neasurin: factor or 1actors important in real life situations. If, in term foresi ht were to be use' 111 accoun ti13 for the results herein reuor ed, it would seen to refer to plannin; ability at a 001591 tivelv simple level. .1 A drawbacn of the Porteus haze Test with older subiects d 9 }_J G) <1 F1. .0 ,—-‘ w < m ‘2 .LOI‘ LJOan 1,1381), .LS F 1 - _. -, 1 ,.. n J. 1' , j ' 1.1.1 . ,1 1her was 001s1dcr11le ouuci1 01 scores 8b the Ql3d end, }. Jo .2 1. .: 4.3, ,1-,1_, ,. 1: - .. .3. - ’ .-.: 3. : :nqr. result1n. 1a a os t1vely SnUued Q1Stlludo10fl. 1h1s lom-oe1l1h ’d :10 f 1') (‘1' (9 LL (5“, f '1 5.11 p.) t. J- :3 E 5 O *‘1’ I) 91 J H r I i 1 O F }__J (1' B { 3 N (D U) P). :2) difficultv could be elim the "Adult Ran3e,” and collecti13 apprOpriate stardardisa da a. Pos i tive skewin3 of scores also occurred with the ratin3 Tw- '1“—‘7_': ‘I .L.L__L. hr u *1. F1. . .1-) . . -11.: .2 0.. .atioh of this '11 1 n .J... iculty seems tars on the scale. (N'T‘P'T‘ Afixr ‘ ‘ 1 xA ‘4‘ . V-“A-A-w-h—l . -, ~ . Q .0 .x lhe For eus 1aze -est as: a Rat1h3 scale 01 Persona (1 4— ,\ ,‘ ‘ -. 1 -: 'L-qv- -- of the Cutfl103asiis_t 01 (P sfieetivshess ..ere used 33 Urecictor r“ ‘ 1 ‘.(\ F . |>- v7“ . ( r‘h~‘—g~‘-.u 1 ' -. fl '1 H If. -vr ihe Porteus haze _est ugb a ministered to (l eltall - 4. ‘ _ 1 :n "w i . J.,. .. .., ..2 -.x. ..’" . :'\ , a; 2—, -" .-- ‘ , " retarded adolescents, rei3ih3 iron lo to 1; cars 01 a36. all 4:! :‘I .. - 2 ‘. -1- ..‘1 2 H - 11.2 ..1, . 1- 2 . ..-“ , "an 4. ° ‘, bflC us more atccrdi ' hish school in he Ssecial education — ‘4 - -"v~ ~ -'- ’-‘ 7' .w .3. - . "-! ‘/'\ ' . ~ ~ 1 7,— "-—~' —. 17. - J- -3--' -w DC? FL." I)“: 2:. u 0.4.. L:.:-r.1../l , -‘-_LC--:L_ C141, 3113. 5.02.3.--1-“ T“! 531'" b ulnfe {‘3 - v U u .- srfin‘ l V" _\(‘.(“ '2 I r) C‘Wfifi; (‘3‘ rN-‘I 7" ‘3," t 5 rm '1' r- rw‘“ T1 ‘tfir {3‘ ‘i‘qj C» QC“ 1.1-} O vasJ L11 2". L..W.'v\r_L.'_~_J. u’OIJ. rU 1.11.1.1... dro rg‘A.LO -01 v .1. £0st Us.) ‘ U 4. J. .2 u .— L‘hd 11",” .2 .1 4-jfi_ 4.1,. e 3 -q 1. y, ”mm“, v.9 t {1,1,3 J- 1'1”an 11’..qu -L,. 5.99:1 .LlJ. v3.1 LI 8.1.11.1. "U pJ. OU;grn. .. “VJOLLS O (‘J-J UC-1LUV$ , _/\Jc_ n‘fii n ““ (“r f“ “y“.t“ run an Vi") fin‘v 1') "'1’\ --1 “A? “3““: ’ ‘ 9* .‘r‘n 9 4L 4.0L. am. «A 01.4. 4.09.. pk’OLk L ...u--v. .L-J.v .4) lvhu; -1.J..1-\_) yu Lia‘s; _ ‘v‘ 1'31 '3' "' ‘5 7“ \fi '1 ‘-/\r}vr' h”: 7" Pjfi‘ '\"“ .1 1,"-9 F" 1 n ..11‘": “f4 _‘. "\ .2 A , JCCu 1-1 1A-, £1 OVA. L‘ALL ..‘JJuLCC UU‘- UCQUCT , .._,‘/u¢._ cello. .101th .. C: LV‘ 3‘ "‘ Fur ‘v ' U-i..OA.L uv.‘ .011J o :". --.2 - 3 _. , r- [A , - W o J- '- , p O rue hatlh seals 01 Pers he sf setiveress mas lilled ou on each §_bv his teacher. Exployers also filled out a ratirr scale for each of the g; in their erploy. Ch their ratis3 sheet for erg the employers also eheclei an item which asked whether or not they won d hire the 3 if a Job were available. Shis role"ebil‘t“ item :as the criterion measure. :10 derived critical score on the Porteus Haze Test made overall correct predi ct UOI possible for 7; and 74 per cert of the gs in the criti al score and replication semales, respec- tively. In ootl ssmpl the re ative preportich of false 21 [U l‘ 3 --.~ 4.: .H- . ‘ - -. ,. 1-31 - -1 3 . 4—: - - 1. _ _' -- .0 nepsulves was so: LLet le s “s1 tne “ele ive prooort1 n 01 .n .24»: . . .2 3: '2 -,. —* 3' '3 4— .2 ». .. lelse icsltltcs; inolcstlno ode Maze 1esu did octuc: n '* r 4 J“ '= ‘A -- ? ' ' h ‘3 '- '3 V? - * a ,1 .1" —' -r. ;;‘ . ..1 ‘t 4‘ *" ‘A predictln teem LL 8&910383 LOdlo 1-111.n a s as coLpared to ”heL 13 O I’) (1 Fl. C.‘ H (D cf‘ 0 O O H d C) O c .‘~ ’_J t; p 0 d. (D 1“ s H: O H \11 93 5- f- CL. \1 O J (N H O O 5 CF 0 *1 c- I» i.— (D wacther or not they would be overall hit rates are not si nificantlv ’ifferest from th ose 1-1 J‘ i ‘N ’ . < '1- ': 1A ‘3 'L "1 Q.‘ “' ’“‘ .L‘U.I"u11€I‘ $3413.11]. 11:2.OL14. 11‘ 01. his, Llaba bLlOweLL o ~,._ -_ .-3 :4. - 1... A - ,1: 4—K- ..L -0 L3. . r, . 1 selow toe crlti c; l Valflc on CLbHUr ode ol ode sceles. In (D 1 z ‘2 'r‘ n \ ~ \ - 0 ~ '1‘ ‘1 1-. P- :u "- .2 ‘~ “7 1 J‘ . g ‘ P‘ 2‘ ' ~v- 1 2“ '.' ' - 'L‘ 1'3 audition, leost gerlecu 11 diction was oopslnec o; aslnr Uh ) (a O H t. J. c+ O m H “10 e stringent standard of scoring above or below ts- velue on both scales. l 111‘ f‘ 1 L C) m S O :3 Q") 0) c ’— r 1 4* c (‘Q ‘ ‘. Gr" 1 ..V . l ‘2‘ 1" "‘ ,‘S‘A‘.‘. r" ‘- creeelhw oevlc s n wo"L tralnlsQ pro; \ .1 involved here. AltLOU“11ete were rot collected that would L. | J -4 1 ""' "! ‘ ' 4" 7‘~' ‘ ' fi+‘: “‘1 ' v: 't 9‘ “A ‘ -. 'V'u" "‘ 1 . "t ‘-* . ‘A -~- allOw a direct cespdtdtlou of savings to be derived cg soieesinv out tho: 3e VLo wool] le crove to be unhir3slc, i - ,. - - .. 4-3.. -3 2 ,12. -.‘ - an sunleclce e an ho~tunnile setleps mould occur. I + -: ~ --v- I: 1’“ .‘-.:J—-‘ -’) '1'“ 0'2‘ 1. ~ 1 ‘ 1 H ‘ Atve1tlon has crews bO t; liults 01 use 113(in,s. Questloss the adequacy of tie criterion me as urc, '7‘. J» the nature 0.1. whet 1311c Porteus es F1. 07 C) C“) C') (.1 "Z J $.10 :6- p H F I L14 C. k D C [__1 Q - C «‘1 C! I‘jf "i 5.4 XGCEBS" {Lre r L -‘ . V lLLLEJ‘ S L a: 4- 1 L.) U ‘73""17—17 “W ‘.‘ rm -" ‘1 ./ ..uH... gnu—.oJ... v.4») 1,,1 d A ~-- V 7 7% -+ , " m - Du1ulor, 1. A. and “ac M177 1. -13 Porueus 177‘ -est as a p, - .1 .°. -1- _, 1.. - v - . 7. .: : 4-3, . r- - ,. J- 1 - preu10uoc o1 -117.Voio111d aa1l1 1«u o1 fouSTdCd CQLlfir.-. T 'r (\V 4‘ D -v :Ahz'\1_f‘3 r‘s< C'- :*r~ o. 0015111. 17,210 ., l;¢-, 4o, gO-Jg. ' .5- 771 ., 1 H2. ._. r71 7' 77,. : .,. . . - ° - Docuer, Rd 2. :uu1 mLLder, v. 1“ ugl11qu11t vs. Txxr-del11- - -1- n \ _ 4.7 7m - J- A... 0.4. --g 77,1 1 L. qxenu DOFIO1’1?”CL OJ uge IOEvCQS ggPlluu‘1VO “WEB LGSb. 7r 1. -~. 7 . — I r- — 00.:h"‘ wr‘VT'fivflf‘flj 1 J a... 1 - 7" -{’\ 0‘ L:;;;L1L.Jzugn;gz" *4)“, *”’ * J‘ 1" ' n "7.1 . .2 . z _ . : - x . fl... J— D - 1 - alUQORS, C. a. 127 1nd117ect ob Vect1ve uousnregguo 01 .3330:- . . ‘ 1 “‘1‘..." ‘Q- "-I~~.:I I‘K .. I'. “rt-H‘d‘zl- .‘II. D- ‘- "- J- - A“ n V11 qL-twr f...“ :1 w) r‘ 7176‘: c7111 .7; '1 Tag—J” ff 7,5(577.Cr\ ECO t ".f) {‘1 15,0 IV“: 0:1 0... _fi- ~ .1 __ ___ .7 ,_.__‘_ _ _;_ v ._ .’_ 7 I _...~._» ._: x, .... - 4.. _‘“I*v-h.:i;--~“I‘ ‘ wv- --\". i”..\;- ”gt..- - .1-:- —- ~‘--.\-Q".'. h..." -.--‘ I-.. ”T 4' , . _,_ T~~., _ ‘ ;- "_. ‘ .5 .1. .—~. .1- _. . '1‘-.. ‘ - 1.. - 1OTuQCJ. bu>15. uOC Von“ Q1bbbru1u103, v-1 ‘uaue .1iV C“- uaw manna-uu a... a- ‘ x " - r 1' 0 ,II 7 .. — , ' " - L - -- .1. . U. \ , -F .L. '”‘ ‘ -v‘u;fi;7dq 4. .1. poc110-;,U.iuxz cmul ..Iumlln. c1mze. 011'31. .:77H7191_. P ~~ —--v\ / [.- "l 'r\\ ' I \ £9.39 J. o , ltljfi‘, ‘T/ 1‘71‘1 ‘J‘J o ‘- * l'\" -3 .fi ‘ r: '7‘ I "‘ 1 'P‘ ‘ 7'1 3' 7 I'm ‘-.’\.‘.‘1 ’- ' ‘ --O.:}lf ”11d -Lo .LJQ , Uualflrj, {120411, ' o .3. , I.n.-'.\(.l u CM fl II.L..1, .. 0 2.1L“ 1131 $1.10" - .Lv 7 -- *r _ 7-, 7-; .74 -~, 1.. ‘ c ;- 7‘ "— no: 71- . New 1051: 1371c JO 1;, 1331. -O- in.“ 7' (‘1 ., .7 ' r1 “7-.-. ,. - 3.- {A r .‘ |- . _ .thlellanu, J. b., lelfi1n, A. u., 310n1cnoreauer, U., C-d ()4. 7 1.. 7'1 '7.- "7. ,- “,1. ~~. . .2 .1. - “[3. .° ,. A. - '7‘ ‘- UUOd DDGCLL, 2- -:- ~Zl¢u-b 9431 {(30101fl5.- 1 “1RCK$»O]J v71- Lostl :11, 1339. *- . C‘ 7 "I ‘7- '1 L 1. .1 z”: ..-. 7r . Borueus, . D. 110 1770 107. vgu c1111c11 >3 01703 0 P310 A + __. . ‘ . "N “—1 " fur-:1 -.-.—.-.----—-....~.._.-¢——JJ..._»-.--- .“luO: .88c11113 QOQ_;3, lJ;r-. :‘72 “ fl ..... '7 r 7r .1..'_._.. . 7: v « -.‘A "‘ ‘27- ‘ "‘ 'r‘ - 7" v4.6 (‘31, Do LO’ljfa CW:1:LJ.L-LC C>t?.t;_n_-BJ.OSO .L- \II ..OLafig, 1.0.60111—10’ London: chran 1111, l “ 7—‘r7r71 7" D‘I aw ”’1’.“fl - nfl q 11nd "' "VLF ~n"“21 n n 7‘. ‘3 ‘ ' \‘p L)“ Ll...~, 1‘... .L-_:_k-:.—1J.— l - A - U' ..H 4 V -_L.iLU\/-_._L-C}v DJ. 57;, v0 1.70:. 01:14! (24. '2 1" 4‘. .1 "" '7 "“"‘ ’ w,"“‘\1“'¥“’. 6 ““\\7 1‘.- ..1 J‘ fi‘flr‘j .. ."‘..\'* J-N'L'n’z' . 411vC _ ..'- Q-.-U IJ’V 1...; VLO L o i... )LLL). R100 LJ (4.... U...L-./ UwU 0.1.1, —n.u.-. u.‘o“~‘.. —— .L. I 7x ' 7-‘7- .2 .. ‘ .2 .L— .. 7"- -_- 7* 1.. “7 “'7' ' 7“ pol¢nb1a an rcrs1o' (15” 10:1, 1. 1.), 139%. ‘3' . '73 ’71 '73 4.3.- .-K , .111 ..- '1 - .7-.- ”.1 .-J. , warren, 1. u. 13u1n93 of e1plodpu and uaeflglOJJi 164uflll‘ 1 -7: —. - . - . 2+" -1 - n1 w 115.11111capge'l males 0.. 9131770110. -.J 311.1 “017.. 1 0.1017... ‘. T . fi— 4— “HAD!“ : ”'71 ’r' .’. 7 f':-: ..'1.11. U. ...C.L:Uo .LJ'JJ..LCO, 132/4.’ (1‘, (421/)-V2/i' m .f:- L". YES"O.OOOOOPROBABLY.OOOOOOOQIPROBP'BLY NOIOOOOOOO. "0.00.0... PACTms _ AVERAGE EMPLOYEE * Less than Same as More than a Self-Confidence ' ‘1 E Cheerful g -_.___...,-....._....._..-.._... - ..d, % COOperates with supervisor / g Cooperates with other employees Hg Respects supervisor gm Minds own business 85 °‘ _ g; Accepts criticism H g Mixes socially with other employees (93 Neat and clean a- -...,--..... (Other) ._._1r... On time ...+. i; Safety conscious LU - .4. H E Careful with materials and preperty fl 3 Conpletes work on time i no §§2 Quality of work 1 6 '53 1’ § Understands work I g Shows initiative 1 E : (Other) : 3 WORK REPORT VAT-1 Emloyer's Evaluation Page 2 TRAINEE.S MEOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOOOOOOOOOOVOAOT. Jm NOOOOOOOOOOCO FACTCRS AVERAGE EMPLOYEE Less than i Same as L More than . W ~— __ M- t - “ 3 Group I--Personality and social ; H H ad ustment i t: E , 3 _L 4L g4 Group II-Work habits and efficiency : < f 1 ; 5; Would you be as willing to hire this individual as you would your 5 average applicant, if a job were available? P Ill-T .0 I I ,-, “3 11.9. 7. n4 f0 m "'\ QTVJ *1 A arr -. '2‘ '4' r1: """p'm UC-L-.---I.LJI.L..IO.J Ca: Any-LJJL £1 ILV .L‘O_?LK) IIIL-L 42.1.. .4 t) 't "i ,- ~n