An Experimental Study Of Relationships Between Self-Concepts Of Fourth And Eighth Grade Stuttering And Non-Stuttering Boys

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELF-CONCEPTS OF FOURTH AND EIGHTH GRADE ■ STUTTERING AND NON-STUTTERING BOYS by Gerald Walter Redwine A Dissertation Presented to the’ FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY * (Speech) January 1959 UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ER N CALIFORNIA GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES 7 ,Thi^dissertation, written by 1 .. under the direction ofhla.Guidatice Committee, and approved by all its members, has been pre sented to and accepted by the Faculty of the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re quirements for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y .. D ale....... • GUIDANCE, C O M M IT T jE ^ • • • ^ v v / . CbairmaA . . . { . . . . . . L i ........................................................................:> ‘ .......... .................;........................t.......................................... - .. 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER . PAGE I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED . . 1 The problem........................... 1 Statement of the problem ................. 1 Hypotheses tested........ *............. 2 Importance. of the study . .*........ 2 » Definitions of terms used ................. 5 Stuttering.................................* 5 * Self-concept .............................. 5 * Favorable adjectives ..................... 5 Unfavorable adjectives ................... 5 Self-acceptance ......................... 6 Unique group self-descriptions .......... 6 Self-attributes ......................... 6 Organization of the remainder of the study . 6 o II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE..................... 8 Empirical studies attempting to different!-1 ate the personality of stutterers from non-stutterers ........................... 8 Self-concept studies ..................... 8 Projective studies. ................. 11 Personality studies using adults and college-age youths.......... ! . . . . 12 , Experimentally-induced frustration studies 19 CHAPTER Personality studies of children ........ Environmental studies of children . . . . Rational statements relating to differenti ation of the personality of stutterers from nor -stutterers ..................... Statements relating to self-concepts . . . Statements relating to the "stuttering personality" ........................... Literature pertaining to the development of the technique used in this study ........ III. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND PILOT STUDY . . Problem .................................... Subjects..................................... Fourth grade ............................. Eighth grade .......... ................. Technique .................................. Basis for the choice of words .......... Judging the adjectives ................... Selection of Judged words and design of the technique ......................... Procedure .................................. Results .................................... Method of analysis ....................... Findings of the pilot study ............. PAGE 19 23 25 25 27 • 29 33 33 33 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 39 39 40 CHAPTER Modifications brought about by^the results * of the pilot study ..................... Subjects ................................ Technique ............................. Definitiveness of terms «... t ■ IV. SUBJECTS, TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES OP THE MAJOR S T U D Y ........................ •. . . • • The subjects.............................. ( Location of subjects ................... • The ‘ technique........................... • • Reliability study ....................... • • Procedure.................... •. . . . V. PRESENTATION OP THE DATA . . . •............. ■ Tests of hypotheses (null form) ......... Hypothesis I ........................... i Hypothesis I I .......... : .......... Hypothesis III ......................... Hypothesis IV . . . . ; ............... Hypothesis V ................• .......... Summary of the tests of null hypotheses Additional tests of differences without hypotheses ............................. VI. INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA............ •. . Discussion of the findings of the present s t u d y ..........’. . ................... v PAGE 40 40 41 4l 43 43 47 48 50 * 52 54 * 55 55 . 57 58 60 62 63 65 71 71 ♦ Vi • CHAPTER PAGE Discussion relating findings to previous studies and statements of self-concepts of stutterers........................... 77' Discussion relating data to previous studies of the personality of the stutterer . . . 80 Personality studies of stuttering children 8l Personality studies of adults or those of college-age........................... 82 * • • Summary statement on relating present study to past studies................. 87 VII . * ’ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................... 91 Summary................................... 91 Conclusions.............................. . 92 ’BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... s ..... . 96 » APPENDIXES Appendix A. Instructions to Judges and Original List Of Adjectives............ • . 103 ‘ • • ■ Appendix B. Experimenter-Designed Adjective Check List Booklet............. 105 Appendix C. Principal Statistical Formulas Used in an Experiment to Determine the Relationships of the Self-Concepts of Boys Who Stutter and Boys Who Do N o t ................... 107 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Analysis of Subjects' Chronological Ages . . 45 II. Analysis of Intelligence Quotients of Fourth and Eighth Grade Subjects ............... 45 III. Distribution of Fathers' Occupational Classifications ......................... 46 IV. Agencies or Sources From Which Subjects Were Obtained................................. 47 . V. Results of Test-Retest Reliability of Experi mental Technique by Use of Pearson Product-* Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) . . . . 51 VI. t Test of Differences of Self-Acceptance * Scores Between Fourth Grade Stuttering Boys and Fourth Grade Non-Stuttering Boys 56 VII'. t Test of Differences of Self-Acceptance Scores Between Eighth Grade Stuttering Boys and Eighth Grade Non-Stuttering Boys 56 VIII. Self-Descriptions Unique to Particular * a Groups of Fourth and Eighth Grade Boy Stutterers and Non-Stutterers .......... 58 IX. t Test for the Significance of the Differ- • ence in the Choice of the Self-Attribute "Just" by Fourth Grade Boy Stutterers and Fourth Grade Boy Non-Stutterers ........ 59 TABLE X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. 0 o • • * viii • • PAGE . Homogeneity of Variance Between Self- * Acceptance Scores of Fourth and Eighth . Grade Boy Stutterers......................■ * ' . £o t Test of the Difference Between the Self- 1 • Acceptance Scores of Fourth and Eighth Grade Boy Stutterers..................... 60 Homogeneity of Variance Test* of Self- 4 ’ Acceptance Scores Between Fourth and • • » Eighth Grade Nori-Stuttering Boys ./.... 6l t Test of the Differences Between Self- ’ . Acceptance Scores of Fourth and Eighth * * • *’ Grade Non-Stuttering B o y s 6l • * t Tests Confirming Criterion of Significant Differences With the Words "Wonderful" and . "Just" Between Fourth and Eighth Grade Stuttering B o y s ..........................• • 63 Homogeneity of Variance of Boy Stutterers’ Self-Acceptance Scores Whose Fathers Are . ’ Either in Class I or Class III . 66 t Test of Boy Stutterers’ Self-Acceptance Scores Whose Fathers Are Either in Class I or Class I I I ............................. 67 Homogeneity of Variance of Non-Stuttering < Boys’ Self-Acceptance Scores Whose Fathers Are Either in Class I or Class III . . , . 67 • • 0 * • o TABLE • . PAGE O ^ a ' XVIII. t Test of Non-Stuttering Boys' Self- . • • • Accep*tance# Scores Whose Fathers Are Either • * Dln Classol or Class III • ................ . 68 XIX. Comparisons of Variances of Boy Stutterers' . ’ • . Self-Acceptance Scores Whose Fathers' Occupations Are Either in Classes I. II • • or III.............*..................... 69 • ■ • • XX: # Comparisons of Variances of Non-Stutterers' ■ • Self-Acceptance Scores Whose Fathers' ’ * Occupations Are Either in Classes I, II * .* ’ • 'CHAPTER -I ‘ *• 9 • * • • • * • • . * • • • ( * » ‘ THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TER&S USED * • . ° • . • • • • • Estimates of personality differences between 'stutte'r- • * . • • • . ers and non-stutterers have ‘ shown- conflicting results .for . * * * * • many years.’ Such estimates have cheated doubt about the ex- * • • • istence of.a cohesive group-of traits which compose what-. * * might be called a ^'stuttering personal:}ty." Experimentation * * • * which approaches personality differentiation through the • • ' • * study of self-concepts could provide new evidence clarifying • # the&e conflicting results'. • * * • •’ * • * . • t • * « * • I.§ THE PROBLEM. . • • • . * * * • ' • • * ♦ * # • • • • Statement of the - problem. .It‘was the purpose of this • • , * ^ . , , * * * study to Investigate.certairt relationships between- the self-* • • concepts of.-.boys who stutter and boys who do* not. Specifi- • • 1 cally, this study .attempted” .tq ‘answer the’following.queg- • * • tions: ’ . . ' • • . ’ • ’ - - • 1. Is there any difference between the self-accept- * . * . , ance of boys who stutter and boys*who do not when compared at t.he.same grade level?* • . ' i • 2. Is there a self-description unique either to. a particular group of boys who B-tutt’ er or to a particular * ‘ • • ’ * . group of boys, who do not? 3. Is there any difference between th*e seir-attri- * butes of boys who stutter and boys who do not Vrhen compared at; the same'grade level? • • • * * • • * .4. Is there.any difference between the* self-accept- . • ance of stuttering boys of two.grade lev*els.and non-stutterr- ' ing boys ©f thd same two grade levels? 9 • • • • * * • 5. Is there any difference between the self-attri- ■ •. . . butes of stuttering boys of two grade levels §ind non-stu,t- * • • • Bering boys of the same two grade levels? • • • * * * Hypotheses tested. Answers to the questions of the • • " • • • • problem were sought to provide evidence for*testing thefo],- • • lowing hypotheses: • • • * .1.. There is no difference between the degree of fa- • « • * * . • • • vorabillty of self-concepts of boys who stutter when com- * ’ ’ • pared with boys who do not stutter. ’ ’ • ( * • * * 2*. No .unique* self-descriptions would result from the • study of self-concepts of boys who stutter and boys who do * . • not. . • ’ * • • • . . . . 3. There .is no difference between -the degree o’ f fa- vorability of the self-concepts of eighth grade boys^ who stutter when compared with the* fourth grade boys who stutter. These hypdtheses"were stated in the null fprm as • * • .'standard procedures of statistical treatment of. hypotheses- # • • testing. • • * . « Importance of the study. Despite a noticeable in- . . ' crease in experimental research dealing with the personality of the stutterer, no clearly-stated description of a • * 1 "stuttering personality" has emerged. However, the lack of ’ such a description does not deny its existence. ' Some.studies ' h'ave reported significant differences between the -personal! - ' * ties of stutterers and* non-stutterers. * A clearer statement of differences, if any, was one of the major motivations for * • * • * desighing the present study. To provide thi’s statement, . • more experimental evidence seemed n§ce?sary‘ . The question of the "stuttering'personality" is qf * • . prime importance to ’ stut.tering theory and therapy and, par- * * « # ticularly, to speech 'therapists who are involved with the treatment of the personality of the stutterer along with the treatment of his'stuttering symptom. An approacri to this • • question.through the study of self-concepts could provide therapists with insight about the feeling level of the' stut- . . * terer,1 s personality, distinct from the behavioral level. * • The self-concept was the focus of the present study because its evaluative pro.cess seemed capable of revealing possible differences between ’the personalities of stutterers ’and non-stutterers. Another factor influencing the choice * was. the appearance of a technique which had already been 2 demonstrated to be effective in differential studies. This • t • » • • • ^Adam J. Sortinl, "Twenty Years of Stuttering Re-* ' search," Exceptional Children. 21:l8l-l83, 1 S?6, February, 1955; and Joseph G. Sheehan, "Projective Studies of Stutter ing’ , " Joufnal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53:18-25, February, 1* 958. 2 ’ • . T. R. Sarbin and B. G. Rosenberg, "Contributions to Role-Taking Theory: IV. A Method for Obtaining a Qualitative technique/* the adjective check list, 'could/it was hoped., ' • lend itSelf to the process of differentiation within the * • • present study. . . • • * • f • * 1 . .The adjective check'list ’ technique had not beerr ap- • • * ‘ plied previously, either in research with .children or in re- • . . • • • * . 4 * search which studied the self-concepts of children who stut- 1 ' * * • * • . * ter. . At.the time the present study was designed, only three. • • * experimental. studie.s dealing with the self—concepts'of stut- • • . terers and* non-stutterers were ‘ available.^ None.of these studies dealt with children, nor did.any of them attempt to* • • * • • • • * measure chahges that* might!occur between age levels* of the • • . . . . self-conceptS of stuttering anc^ non-stuttering children. • . . . Specifically, there had been no previous attempt to' measure . * • ch&nges between the. earliest grade level at. which boys might* • ’ * •• m • * • be expected to evaluate-themselves independently through pa- • • . • i i per and pencil self-evaluation techniques and a grade level . representing early, adolescence. Inth:Ls stady, these, two • * . * . * grade levels were .considered to* be the fourth and eighth, • • • « * * t respectively. 'The present study was undertaken to seek . • * • *••• * • • * needed information in these aj*eas. . *. . Estimate *of the Self," The Journal' of Social Psychology. 42: •71-81, January, 1955•* • * Fred E. Fielder and Joseph M. Wepman, "An Explorato1 ry Investigation of t;he Self-Concept of* Stutterers," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. 16:110-114, June, -1951; ’ Sheehan.'op.' cit.: and Persephone Rahman, "The Self-Concept and Ideal Self-Concept of Stutterers as Compared to Non- Stutterers" (unpublished Master's thesis, Broqklyn‘College, Brooklyn, 1956). • • * • • 15. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS*.USED • • • • • Stuttering. F6r purposes of this stydy, stuttering was considered to be speech which had a sufficient amount of hesitation, prolongations, repetition and/or blocking during * • production to be*labeled "stuttering" by speech therapists • , • . • • who’had been creden-tialed by the California State Department . * • . • • * # . • . of Education*. No requirement Vas ma’ de regarding any sCtb-* ••*•.’ • : * . classification of type qr severity of dtutterin-g. * . . ’ • * * . * * * , * * . * • « * • * • « Self-concept. • Within this study the self-concept* was • • • • • * • • • f * » considered to*be‘the composite of. favorable-and unfavorable • • . • / • ‘ * adjecti,ves selected by, arty particular subject from *an a.djec- * # « • * t *tivq .check list: The *boy chose those adjectives ’ which-.he* • * • • • * • .felt described him. These adjectives .had'been predetermined • * • ***•• • • • • , * * by independent Judging to represent either favorable or un- * * . i l ' * favorable .ddscriptiohs of aspects of personality,. . . * . . • • . . , . * * ' * •Favohable a'djectlve.s. V Adjectives were considered fa- • a * * • • a * * * . • • ’ • . ’ * * vorable whi.Ch were ehoson by* 90 per cent br morb judge agrfee- . . • *. . • • • • # ment to be favorable, descriptions of* personality tralt^*. * • • * . * * . • * • • • • • * * * * • • Unfavorable adjectives. 'Adjectives wtre considered [ * * . unfavorable which were chosfen.by 90 per. cent or morfe* ji^dge * * < agreement to be unfavorable .despriptions of.personality traits. * * * * ”* 4 See instructions to .judges, Appendix A. • • • • Self-acceptance. Self-acceptance in this.study was • * • • 0 • • | * • £he Index score resulting -from dividing the number of favor*- • •. •’ • able adjectives o-hosen by a subject by the total number of . *• .* . * ■ * . • adjectives selected by the same‘individual: - • ' * • * • • * • • • • ’ ’ “Unique*group Self-descriptions. Unique selfTdescrip- * • tions were those adjectives which were chosen to* a statiptl- . * ■ • • • • cally significant .degree* by only one group. -These adjec- • . •tives were considered tq be descriptive of traits typical of • • • , the groUp making the 'Choice. ‘ . * • • « • • * • . . • • • ' Self-attributes. A self‘ •attribute was a .quality of . * * * * . * . self -indicated by any particular adjective chosen by’ the • . • • * subject. * ■ • • . • • • , • . . \ • . , • * . . * • • • • • ■ • ■ ' *• III. ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER’OF THE STUDY • ' * * * • • * Trie remainder of this study is .divided ir\to six*-chap- « « • * * • • ters, a bibliography, and an appendix. Following the introv * ( ( 1 . ( , ductlon, Chapter II presents .a review of.empirical studies * • i • and rational statements pertinent to the present study. * • • * * 1 * • • * Chapter III describes the -preliminary investigation- • • • • .and a pilot study. The purpose of the.pilpt s.tudy is devel- ' # oped to illustrate its-function In assisting in refining .the,. . t .technique and the procedures used in the major .study.. * * ' « The major experiment is Introduced in Chapter -IV. * • - This chapter's purpose is to describe the subjects Involved * * in the experiment, .to give the background For the final development of* the technique and a.complete description of the .technique itself, and to state the procedures whichwere . •. ' • . ,* • • • . followed in .cQnducting the experiment. Chapter V.pres'ents the data which c.ame from the*sta- . . • t , • •. ; tlgtical analysig *of the qpb^ects' responses' to th§ techhique. The specific analyses are als9 explained. . * * * • »».** ' • .Chapter VI presents an interpretation «and a dis*cus- . • •« * . * .**.•*. sion of the data obtained through the statistical andlypis • • .. . . 1 * , • . ■, . of Chapter V. Further, this chapter relates the findings of •**... thd present 3tudy to previous researched cited in the review • * • 4 * • * . ' * * of the literature.. Generalizations'are presented to 'assist ‘ • • • *• • * # * * • * in developing a fuller’ understanding of the implications of . • ’ * ‘ * * ’ ’ the data. ' *• ' # • # • * * . • * ; . ■ The final chapter/ Chapter *VII, summarizes the study • • * • • • dnd lists the conclusiqns believed to be warranted by-the - • . • * . • da^a of the1 3tudy. • s' . Following .Chapter’*VII, the bibliography lists the* • • • * • * * # primary sources cited -In the study aijd other works to’ which • • • • the investigator was "indebted* for contributions, to the dej- • • * . * veiopraent'-and tb the presentation of* the .study. ‘ • • * • • • • • • * . * • The final s'ectlon of the dissertation is an appendix . • • • . * * • * whlqh 'contains' the fornlulas.-used in the. statistical analysis* • * . of the data* and presents examples of the materials use'd in the study. * * . • • * •• . . . * CHAPTER II REVIEW OP LITER/WURE *. . • • Availability of .source, material, both in the field of # * i ' • • stuttering theory and therapy and in the field of personal!- • . • ' ’* • • • ‘ • • ty, has increased rapidly i^n recent.yearsAny ,compreheYi‘ - • 1 • ' • , i « *• sive,pritique.of even, the major variants in1 either fie-l.d • . . . • * * ‘ * * * would, .have been far beyond the scope and purpose of the ***** • # , • present review..’ Therefore, only those sources which ap- • . . * . • * ‘ peared to be directly pertinent to either, the problem or de- • * • * * sign/of the* present study are. discuss'dd. ’ ' • . * • * • , « • ' . • I. ’empirical studi’ es attempting • ■ ' * • • . * . TO DIFFERENTfATE THE PERSONALITY . * . < • . . . . • . • / ■ 0F;. STUTTERERS FROM NON -STUTTERERS ' • ' * • * . • « • , * Sel-f-coricept studies. Of* .those studies available, at • • ' • « • ’ the. time of the present investigation, oply. two studies,- i • ■ p • • • . Fielder and- Wepman and Rahman were specific in attempting , ■ ' • , • to differentiate the self-concepts of those who stutter from • • tHose who do not. .Both studies used .the*Q-technique. . Fielder and Wepman compared t.he self-^concepts of ten 1 . • . * * Fred E. Fiedler and Joseph M.. Wepman,. "An Explorato ry Investigation of the Self-Concept of Stutterers,," Journal of Speech and Hearing* Disorders. 16:110.-114, June, 1951. • o ,*• • t # •** * Persephone Rahman, "The Sel‘ f-Con*cept and Ideal Self- Concept of Stutterers as Compared* to Non*-Stutterers" (unpub lished Master. 1 s thesis, Brooklyn College., Brooklyn, 1956). adult male stutterers .se'ekipg stuttering .therapy with the • • • . • • ■. . * • . ,self-concepts of si* adult male non-stutterers. The sub- * # • * * • • • • • • | jects were matched on sex, age, educational- and socior » • # • * economic status. The stutterers had speech, problems since , • "**• childhood. An array of seventy-six statements, descriptive • * * * • of personality trait’ s, was.’ presented-to the.subjects for • •’ * * * ■ ■ *. * * * ’ * ' sorting into eight categories according to the prpcedures of . . • • . * . * the*. Q-technique. . Results of. the study Indicated that a hy- • • pothesis of difference in the eelfrcontept of stutterers and .. • • ‘o * ’ non-stutterers .;could not be supported.J Rahman had a two-fpld purpose .to her study. She in-. * • * « # • ; », * * * . ves-tlgated .the-relationship's-§ betweeh ’ (l) the’self-conoept of the stuttferer *a’ nd .his own ideql- s-elf-concept, and ( . 2. ) the ..' ‘ • • . • • « * * • self-conceit and. ideal.self-concept- of- the stut£erer-.and- • • • ' • * • those of the noh-Stutt'erfer. .Her subjects'were twd matched , • ' ' ' • , , i i - groups consisting, of-fourteen stuttering and.fourteen non- . - * • • stuttering mal.es- -from Brooklyn. Cqllege. Both likeness in • ' * * • 4 * - - . intelligence and’socio-eqonomlq status were- assumed because- • . * * . • • * • * the’subjects, we're in attendance dt the college. _ A Q-sort of * • * * personal concepts was made .bye'ach subject. The first sort ' ' - * • ** ' • ! • " . produced .the. subject's self-concept while the secqnd* gave ' .’ • • • * ’ ’ his ideal self-concept. ' The results indicated that there * ’ ’ were ho significant differences’ .between the self-concepts * • * » • * * and the ideal, self-concepts of the stutterers ahd the non- “ *4 - * ’ ’ . . stutterers. * • - . * . *.-• 3 • •• 4 ’ . • • I YPielder. and. Wepman, loc. cit. Rahman, loc. city One additional study .implied.*an .attempt to measure * * the possible differences between percepts of the. stutterer and the normal* speaker. .In ‘ this study, Zelen, Sheehan and.* * Bugental gatljere.d self, percepts of* these two'groups through . • • ■ • • the use of the W-A-Y.-technique*. In this, technique,* the. sub- • • . Ject is asked to furnish three answers to the question, "Who* ‘ * * ’ are you? • The study cited here,appeared somewhat .loosely • • * * * ■ , • .coricelved and executed. Thirty stutterers,*in two different • • therapy, groups*, were asked tq react to the question- while ** the three authors circulated about the groups. Upo.n gather- * • • * • • * # ing these datp* the authors;made comparisons with .the *W-A;-Y . • • • • • » , * results of• . a control group of 16’ 0. normal speakers used in • * . * 1 preVlpus*. studies. . Results indicated the ' following ‘signifi.t* * ' c,ant differences ii). favor of one. group or the ‘ other oa cat'e- • * * * gobies of the technique: * non-stutterers were' more aware of * 1 * age; stutterers had greater positive affdct; non-stutterers .more frequently pointed out ‘ Uniquen'ess of the self; nori- . . * stutterers were mere aware of their own sex; and’the stut- - * . * * • * * 5 terers were more aware of gfoup membership. . • • • . • * . The lack of a statement clarifying similarity -of con- ; , . * . • trol measures for the stqtterefs and normal speakers during. . * • * . . * ’the period of answering the three .question^ <?f the Zelen, * * • * • • * * . • Sheehan *qnd Bugental study created doubt about the confidence . . 5 * Seymour L. Zelen, Joseph G. Sheehan and James P. Bugental,. Sel*f-Perceptions in Stuttering," Journal of Clin-. leal Psychology. 10:20-72, January, 195^-* • which cou»ld be* placed *Ln the Jesuits. Further doubt arose . • * • i* • • from the possible influence caused by the. three experi1 -. • ’ • • • ment'ers circulating during the answering’sessions. £ follow • « * • up of-th& original study of the W-A7Y technique itself . • • • • * showed that Reliability studies were lackingt This source • ■ t ' • * stated that the status- of the technique.was preliminary, * • • * • • , awaiting further study, and. that only a tentative .ba§;Ls for • • . » * • • the dimensions of the technique had been established.^1 Pfo.lective studies. A recent article by Sheehan was • 1 ^ • • « * * * , . , » • . * • • * • • ' • * * particularly damaging: to the contentions, that a .".stuttering .personality" exists. He reviewed a number-of studies which had used projective technique^-. Sis method Of ‘ analysis was ■ • • . * * • • • • ****** *• •** •’*• * to check the relevancy of each-study to either (1) the ,que‘ «- f • • • • ‘ . • . • • * * tiqn of difference or no difference on personality dimenT * • * * * * *• * * * * * * * sioris, or (2) whether* o’ f not the :resuits of the Study war- • * • •. • * •* * • t ( ' • t * . ( ( * ranted the assumption of a particular personality de'scrip- « • * * * * * • • * * • I tion for those who •sttit.ter.* The article reviewed*and prfe- • . • * • ‘ » • . * sented tabular analyses' of‘ these .studies. Sheehan concluded • • , * * .that, with the exception of a'.lower aspiration level, there • ‘ . ■ ’ were rjp. reliable differences qh'own by these Studies* between. « • - ‘ . \ stutterers and non-stutterers’ , nor was 'there -any particular • • • • • • • « * * * • • 7 personality description warranted for stutterers. ! '**•6 ' • * "* * * ■ * James F.‘ T. Bugental * and Seymour L. Zelen, ".Investi gations into the WSelf-Concept.1 I. The W-»A-Y Technique," Journal of Personality. l8:*^831489,’June, $95.0.. * * . * 1 * * •• I* * * * • " • • •'Joseph G. Sheehan, Protective Studies’of * •• Personality studle's using adults and-collegfe-age youths. Bloodsteln and Scfirefber used three cards of the • • t .Thematic Apperception Test to evaluate the-psychoanalytic’ • ' ‘ . . ■ . • . * hypothesis that stutterers were obsessive-compulsive. ./\n established criterion was -used for analysis.oh the. themes * * * * * * • , * . • • * • * # • * , • *given ‘ to. cards . 2, . 5'and 1*0 by fifteen stutterers and fifteen ‘ ’ * * ‘. . - * . . . non-stutterers, from a college population. ‘ Their .findings • « • • , • * • * * indicated that; the psychoanalytic hypothesis could ‘ not be. • • 8' . .supported. . . • ‘ • . " *• • • " * « • ♦ • •Rlchirdson-piatched.-'twenty-two male and eight 'female •s-tutterers. with the sanre distribution .of non-stutterers.. In a rather comprehensive study, -using- three different tech- ‘nique.s of personality assessment/, it was found‘ .that stutter- , I « ... «• • • • • « ers. wpre. more’ socially introvertlve, more depressed And.le’ ss •happyTgo-lucky. .These results came1 from administration.of • * • * 4 » 1 i , . * 4 * • « • Form .A of ’ An Inventory of - Factors SlipCR. The Rorschach showed differences in’dispersion of the' medians-for'small . * . • • detail and disregard for movement and color.' These differ- •enc§*s were.not g’ ooslder'ed significant, however.’ From the responses.to the1 thematic Apperception.Test,-no differences ♦ * * * * ♦ • ♦ • Q * * , • w^fe obtained. . ' • • • » - . . . • • Stuttering." Journal of• Speech and Hearing Disorders. 23:18- 25, February, 195?-" ---------------- T-: * * 3 * * * * * * 011ve.r-Bloodstein and Lois’R-. 3chrieber,’-"Obsessive- Compul&ive.'Reabtions in Stutterers," -Journal of Speech and** Hearing Disorders. .22:33-39,- March,- 1957*. r * •* • * . • • * * # . » * , Q # * * • * * • • fLaVange H. ’ Rlthardsori,*4 1 Th£ Personality of. Stutter-, ers .1 1 . Pgychoiogical .Mondgraphs f ‘56:.l-4l. 1944. . . Ip a\import of a paper presented at the thirj;y-fir3t annual jneeting of’the Western Psychological Association,. * • * • • • * Shefehan 'and Zussman gave the results of a .study of. the Ror- • * • . * * . • sch&ch protocols of twenty-five stutterers and twenty-rfive ' • • • * • *ncfn-stutterer s’ . They stated that stu'tterers demonstrated *i * * • .... 'jnore drlv.e for achievement, that, they overemphasized sup- • * •. ’ . ' . ’ ’ * . pres*si-ve controls , - and- that they Were reluctant in-accepting 4 * * ’ * » dependency needs. • Furthermore, *there-were indications that r r • * * stutterers showed a prevalence* of inner resources over * . • * . • • •• • * * #• * . * • • channels o*f communication; and a’greater tendency to mar-:' • » * * * * * * * * a sh&l-l I - .sicI T intellectual defenses against anxiety:"1 • * . • . . • • • « • ■. ’Stating the hypotheses that stuttering wps a manlfes-. tation of psychological maladjustment- and 'that frustration * • • • * may-be- both d/primary source and an end product, df malad-- * ’ " * • • * justment,’Madison and Norman ’ compared the results of .the atj- ’ ’ • ' + • . . * ministration of the ’ Rosenzweig’ .PictUre-Frustratlon Test to , • . • * • • • 4 « . * • 4 • twerity-flve stutterers .with the' results' from. Rosenzweig1 s’ • * • * , , * • • • 460 normals. The stuttering .population consisted of thir-. ..... ' . . • . . ' . • teen-high school- student’ s,, seven’University of New-.Mexico’ students,’ and five adults living’ in’AlbuqUerqueV Slgnifi- • • • ■ ■ ’ • * • • * ■ - ’ ' * ■ • • . * * cant findings'showed that the. ’ stutterers- wer.e 'more .intpopu- * * * • • * * * * * nitive and. they ha’ d greater need -persistence.. • The non-stut- * * . * * * \ * * • • •terers had-more obstacle-domiriahce. -The experimenters-felt • • 4 ' * 1 0 * * Joseph'G."Sheehari and Char.les. Zussman. "Rorpchachs * of Stutterers Cdmpared with Clinical Controls., ' American Psychologist/ 6:500. Sept.ember, 1951. (AfcstractT) T~ • I • that these findings were in .keeping with the psychoanalytic • • * ... /contention that sputtering is essentially-comp'ulfelve in- riar ’ • • • • * ture/ and has anal-sadistic tendencies resulting-in'a turn- . \ • T.1 ing inward of aggression. . • * • * * * ♦ * An attack upon the Madison,and Norman study ..formed * ’ * • * • , the .bapis-for what was‘contended to be a repetition of the # «> * • * * study by Quarrlngton. The’ .subjects were, twenty-three, males . • • ■ ‘ • . and beVen females awaiting speech therapy. Their responses . . to the Picture-Frustration Test were analyzed .by two-psy- • * * * • chologists who .were'independent of the study. . tfo signifi- . cant differenc-es from Rosenzweig1 s ‘normals were’ found: * . • • • . • • . . • * ’ * Quarrlngton‘ .stated a desire to ‘ test.’ the -existence of a ran- , # 4 . f • • * # 4 1 O * ' domly distributed genetic bdsis ,for stuttering. c • '. The use'by both Madison ’ and Norman and Quarrlngton .-of * • * •• * * *’** ’ Rosenzweig1 normal group, synonymously with '.'non-stutterer" * • • • •* * ' * • • * * • was questioned.. Some* aseuhance should have b.een provided* * • * * « * 41 tfiat thefe were no . ’ st.utterers among thebe "normals."- • Fur-., ' * * < * * * 4 ' ' ' ' ther, . it‘ .was di'fflcu-lf to .know whether Quarrlngton. actually • ‘ ' ' . . ' replicated the Madison and Norman s'tudy. The'descriptions •• » * * t t , * • of subjects certainly indicated possible discrepancies in sampling! . 1 . 11 * * * * * LeRoi Madison and Ralp’ h D.. Norman, "A Comparison of the Performance*of Stutterers* and Non-§tuttef*ers on the R0B7 enzrtelg JPictiire-Frustration Test,11 Journal of Clinical Psy chology, 8:179-183> April, 1952*. * * 1 O * * ■ * • . Bruce Quarrlngton, The Performance of StuPtererB ' on the Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration Test*."- Journal \of Cilnlcai Psychology. . 9:l89--192,‘ April., 1953- • ■ . . * Murphy, combined an eleetnoenceph'alographic * study* with * • . ■ the use o*f the Picbure-Frustratlon Test. He* compared thirty adul*t stutterers and thirty adult non-s'tutterers who .had an' • * ’ alpha index of 50 per cent or higher. His findings indi-.‘ * * • • . . . * • , . * ■ . , cated that stutterers wpre more *ego-defensive; more .'extra- • puni’ tive, * less intropunitlvq and less group conforming.-1^ * i, • • . • • » , The level-..of aspiration of stutterers compared with •. • * • .. • • non-etutterers wad'the.problem of several, studies. Mas-t, • • # * * * • * 4 , • ' using .the Carl Hollow Square-to measure goal’ discrepancy,*... ' • '. •* * • * • • • • found, that the-score of.stutterers was significantly low^r than that of a normal-grdup . * .This finding indicated, • " that • *■ * ••.• • • ‘ • - * • the stuttering group1s.defenses against failure were overly '* , * ■. I'/i * . * * ■ cautious or in th'e defeatist category.' . * Sheeh'an and Zelen reported two 'Studied using the Rotter Level of Aspiration Board. A comparison Of twenty stutterers with twenty .non1 stutterers resulted in the failure -to find significant idif-* • ferenc.es/ev.en, though the. stutterer's- were.,4' somewhat lower’ ‘ thari c'ontrols".n1^- Another study conlpared thirty **maie and *. • • * ' » • * * * / , , ’ * * ' • • • ' ^Albert1 ] ? . Murphy*, Jr., '"An* Electrpencephalographic Study of Fru strati on. in Stutterers," Speech Monographs, 20.*. •148-149’ , 'June, 1953- ‘(Abstract.') .)••• ' . ’ . * ‘ • 1 Zi •• * . • Vernie R. Mast) "Level of Aspiration* as. a Method o’ f Studying the Personality*.of Adult Stutterers'," Speech Mono graphs t 19:196., August,. 1952.* (Abstract.). ‘ . . . *• ' • *' ‘ : 1^*Jose^h G., Sheehan and Seymour L. Zelen, "A-Level, of Aspiration Study, of Stutterers-," American Psychologist. 6’ : 500, September, 1951 • (Abstract*.' ten female aduJLt'# stutterers,* who weret enrolled in .either a « ' • • 4 i < university psychological or .a speech clinic, with a cCmtrpl. * • . . ' • • • group of forty-five males.and fifteen* females. The follow.-. ‘ •ing-results were found: (l*) on the D score (average *of’de.-. * ' « , * « • * • • • • v-£ations of-bids from performan.ee), stutterers were *slgrrifl- cantly lower’than non-jdtutterprsj (2) bn .range of aspiration . • # . . ' * stutterer’ s were, significantly higher than nbn-Stutter ers j ’ • • « • * * * * • • * • * * * '('3) on-frequency of'success, stutterers wei^e. significantly. ' ’ ‘ * ‘ ' • ‘ • ' • ' • * • higher than non-stutterers. ' • ' ' The Rotter Incomplete Se'nbencps Test a-nd phe Personal Audit wefe"presented to twenty-three mile college .stutterers and their ndn^stuttering matches by Bearss. The .results showed that these techniques did pot differentiate between the two groups, with respect .to personal maladjustment. Fur thermore; there was in .the ’ relationship of the. severity of stuttering to -test-scores, no significance.-nor Was there any agreement of a sl-gnfficant nature’between'the maladjustment scores of the. two tests . ^ •’ . . • * . • Render- administered the Bernreuter Personality Ihven-? •tory to' 249 college stutter'e'rs. and 249 'college ...nOn-stutter- ers. The results’demonstrated that stutterers .had’a • ’ 16 • ’ * ' • . • . ' • Joseph. G. Sheehan and Seymour.L'.. Zelen,- "Levels'of Aspiration in Stutterer's'.and Non-Stuttere'r.s,‘ " Journal of Ab normal and Social Psychology,*‘ 51,:83“-86. 'July; 19551 * * • * * ' • * * • • • * i *17 \ • . t Loyal* M. Bearss, "An Investigation.of Conflict in Stutterers and Non-Stutterers,'* .Speech Monographs. l8:*237_ . 23S, August, 1951'* . * ’ - • * ’ : significantly*higher neujcotlc tendency, were more intro- * • . . ' • ' ' * • . • • verted, 'less ‘ dominant,, less •confident and less sociable. • • • * • * • • * * Further findings showed po dl-fferencp between the two groups • , * • • % * * # * r l fi • • •in relationship.to selC^sufficiency. * ■ • • • • * • * , One of the earliest studies to make Use of invento- rids was Johnson1s .evaluation*of sixty-one male and nineteen * • * * . * female stutterers: ‘ The age range of these subjects was from* * * * * • * * • • , • • * * . seven bo forty-two years." An analysis of the responses’ to • • * * the .Woodworth-House -Mental Hygiene Inventory led -Johnson to state that .the’difference in maladjustment between stutter ers arid normal pon-stutterers was insignificant. . This find.- * * * * • * . • * ’l-ng was especially true wlt-h children’ . • Johnson contended *..*•* * * * . that’ . " the‘ .emotional and* social’maladjustment of- stutterers ’■ ' . * ' • ’ ‘ ’ ’ ’ ‘ ,1s in large'measurd the result of- stuttering, Insofar as • ♦ * * , • * * stuttering is-pertinently.related to it/1^, •’ . * • • Duncan made. an. item’analysis of-thirty-five-questions ’ on thd home adjustment index of- the Bell Adjustment. Inventro- . ’ by a's answered' by sixty-two’stutterers,’forty-nine men and • thirteen women, and a*’ like number of nonwstutt.erers. A Chi- * • * * * i * square'*-analysis indicated significant differences 'on ,'ques- • . ' ' . ' ‘ ' tions treating the'following topics parental understanding, , * « * ' • ■ . ' 1 , » -I Q * * • Jhmes P.: Behder, "The* Stuttering Personality/' * . American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,’ 12:l40~l46., January, 1942“. * . . • r“~ • • • * /• i*o. ’ • * * * V/endell Johnson, "The Influence of.Stuttering on • the Personality .11. University of Iowili. Studies*: Studies - in ’ * Child Welfare* 5:1-140,.April 1, 1932. ' “ • • • * lack of real affection and love in the home,’ - failure of par- * • f I # » * • • , * 9 ents -to*..recognize.maturity of the individual, positive de- « • • • • * * • * * * # • sire to run away from home, and* feelings of parental disap-* * • • * , • *9 • * • 9 • pointment in the individual.. The control group-had 'ajcticu- • • . ’ on ' • 'latlon problems. t ’ • « • *Us;Lng the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Test,'Smith concluded that this technique "had value irj obtaining both' • diagnostic'and-therapeutic-information relative to the needs ' ♦ • * * of each individual stutterer.As'a differentiating de vice between stutterers and non-stutterers, no results se'emed applicable. \ * ' • .Ih a relatively recent study by Boland, use'was made tof ‘ the Minnesota' Multiphasic Inventory for measures of gen- . eral anxiety., .a speech anxiety projective test, and a self- t * • • rating scale. This Combination of Methods furnished ‘ these. findings: the degree of neuroticism did not differentiate • • • * * • between'stutterers and non-stutterers, the stutterer ex--‘. • . . ' • v - * ‘ . • • pressed anxiety 'overtly-, stutterers, had. a higher level, of • ' ' ‘ • * •" ’ ' ‘ ’ * . : cHronic Or general'anxiety and stutterers showed.a greater' ‘level of anxiety on' a.speech anxiety projective test- . Addl- tional findings showed that-general-anxiety..and .the measur.e - • ■ ... . ; ‘ • . . . * • > ^Melba h . .Duncan, "Home-Adjustment * of Stutterers. Verqus Non-Stutterers," Journal of Speech Disorders. -14:255- • .*259September, '19^9- . \ . • . ’ • • . , gj •. # * • • . • • : Walter E. Smith, "A Comparison of the Responses of’ , . Stutterers and 'Non-Stutterers ir\ a College Population bn the * * Rotter Incomplete., Sentence. Blank," Speech Monographs,s20: , 198, August, • 1953* ’•( Abstra’ ct.) . o£ speech arjxlety were relatively* independent of each other. * 1 . and further,, .those who had high levels of speech anxiety tended "to rate- themselves as less competent in speech situ ations*.1 . ' 2^ * • Experimentally-induced frustration studies. Two • studies .were found which used experimentally-induced frus tration to-measure possible- differences between stutterers and non-stutterers. Berllrisky, after submitting fourteen . pairs of subjects to four .conditions,’concluded that, -as a . * * , • • • • • • , symptom* .of maladjustment, stuttering increases when it can not be expressed and decreases when it can b‘ e expressed.2^ • * • * * * * * * • * Solomon concluded from her experiment, that "stutterers manl- ; fest more’rigidity of behavior-in an.oral situation than. 'fluent1 speakers'."2^ . • 1 • . ■ » ’ • * « . * . • • . ' ' • Personality studies of children. . McDowell examined matched groups of sixty-one stuttering children and sixty*- . o'na non-stuttering- children on a number of variables.. . 22 * John’L.'Boland, "A Comparison of Stutterers and • ■ ’Non-Stutterers-on-'Several Measures'of. Anxiety,1" Speech - Mono- * • graphs, • 20:144 , * June, 1953* • . - • ' . • ... •"23 • *'•*•*. 1 ■’’ *.• 1 1 Stanley L. Berlinsky,*. " A Comparison of'Stutterers and Nop*-Stutterers In .Four Conditions .of Experimentally 'In duced Anxiety;". Dissertation Abstracts, .14:719,-. 1954. * . • " * * • Pi! * * * • * * * ’ * * • : . Nartcy D. ’ Solomon,* "A Comparison of Rigidity of Ber-' . havior Manifested by a Group of Stutterers Compared with . 'Fluent' Speakers in Oral* and.Other Performances hs Measured by the Elnstellung-Effect," Speech . MonogVaohB. 1-9’ :19S, Augpst, 1952* '(Abstract.-;. . Results pertinent to the present study Indicated failure to *. • • # find significant differences'between these groups on a* free . * • « . • * association test-. Further findings from the Woodworth-Cady, Wdodworth-Mat.thews Questionnaires and the ’ Kent-RcJsanoff *Ast . * • * * sociatlon Tests indicated that the. emotional adjustment of * « • • • • * * ■ • * tha two'groups was very .similar.^5 • • * , • * • • ♦ * • , - - In publishing ‘ several Rorschach studies, Meltzer evi- * * * * • denced a. considerable interest in p’ ossible. differences be tween children who stutter-and children who'do not.- One* of his earliest- studies reported norms which.he established for 26 • • • • stuttering children’ . In'a .later study,. Meltzer matched . .fifty'stuttering children’ with fifty'non-stuttering'children • to analyze the, differences between the two’groups in-the • number of .words used and the time taken in responding-, to ten • Ink. blots of-the Rorschach. ‘The stuttering. children were found-to be' more, talkative.- -Matching fifty childrea who - • • stuttered'with fifty'who did not, - ’ ’ Meltzer .in. 19.44 again re ported that stuttering’children showed .greater productivity and responsiveness. Puh.thermore; they combined and syhthe-' *’Sized responses to a-greater extent .The respo’ nsds . . 1 f t 1 ’ • 25 ’ • ' • ' ‘ ' • • . *' J . . -.Elizabeth D; 'McDowell, Educational and Em'otlonal . Adjustment of ;Stuttering ' Children - (New York': 'Columbia Uni.- * versity .Press,-1928). . • ' • 26 • ’ ’ . * - * ft. 'Meltzer, . "Personality Difference's Among St.utter- • ing Children, as Indicated.by the Rorschach Test," American. * . - Journal of Orthopsychiatry4:262-282, April, 1934. • • . * * ?7 ..•••• " • . • . *’ • * • . H. * Meltzer*•-"Talkativeness-in Stuttering and Non-*', stuttering Children,". JoUhnal of Genetic Psychology. 46:371- 390/ June, .1935- * . . • *. ’ • *• t .demonstrated, however, that tftls productivity was the result • * , i * • of compensatory and compulsive drives rather than of’percep- • * ‘ • ,tual clarity or of superior abstract thinking. He concluded • • • » • that these stut’ tering children exceeded the non-stuttering children, on practically every factor 'which indicated emo- . • 28 ‘ tional instability.* * • • •• • . * ' Krugman concluded from a‘Rorschach study comparing fifty‘stutterers with fifty problem children that there was a close association, between stuttering and emotional and ' ’ personal maladjustment. ‘ This‘association was seen by, the . obsessive-compulsive traits of obsessional neurosis‘ • Stutterers and their non-stuttering siblings were. compared by Christensen on the Travis-Johnston, Thematic Apr perception Tpst and the Rorschach^ Fathers and mothers were also asked, to'rate .the.-stutterer and his sibling on &ikty- nine -questions. Comparative results of'the two groups on*- ' the -thematic material showed.that stutterers.projected*sig- nificahtly piore into situations'which involved nursing at . th'e. b'reast, identified more with female figures*,., saw more ’ ’ • . * • . < 1 • • * • • sadness and* choking albng with unfavorable outcomes in*ag- ** ( * * * ! * * I • gresslve pictures' and felt more hostility* toward '.'man*'1 • . ' . * • • " ’ • • ' . * * . . * . • • _ 28 * ! H: Me-ltzer, . ‘"Personality Differences Between Stut tering and fton-Stutterlng Children as Indicated by* the ‘ Ror schach Test/' Journal. of* Psychology, 17 :39-59, January, ‘ 1*9 •on # • , * t • * * » ' . . -Morris Krugniarr, "Psychosomatic Study of Fifty Stut tering'Children. ,Round*Table IV. Rorsthach Study," Ameri can .‘ Journal Of Orthopsychiatry. l6:127-133>*January, 1946. Rorschach responses of the stutterer's indicated Significant ly faster responses, more human dptail and anatomical re1 * » , sponses to Card VI, more reactions to achromatic cards and those affording a chance'to express worries, greater*hope . for- escape or ambitions',. more additional space and more ad ditional-color-form. There was.no significant difference in fornj perception. On the other hand, the'non-stuttering sib lings projected significantly more- into situations dealing with punishment by a male or in interpreting the child's ac tions* to be displeasing to parents and were not excessively unhappy about punishment. These non-stuttering siblings al-_ .so gave more v;ords to'both the blank' card and aggressive* . stimuli','and .more action in depressive pictures;. Rorschach ’ responses of the non-stuttering siblings showed the follow ing to be greater: -'total number of responses, animal''re sponses, initial and additional human responses, additional . 'animal responses, a combination of human'plus animal re sponses over a combination -of human detail pius animal de tail responses, 'and sum of color responses' in relation to '' • movement. Neither fathers nor mothers were rated to be ade*- ' * • * , quate parents according*.to criteria used by Christensen.' The, fathers an'd-mothers indicated that the stuttering'child * * * * * * was more nervous, got upset mope easily .and felt worse when .disciplined. 3° * ' , • • • . .. • • . • * * * * • • • • • ' • . . ______L— _______,-- . . • . • - * • ' . • ' 3°Arden h , Christensen, "A Quantitative Study of Per sonality Dynamics' in Stuttering .and Non-Stuttering Siblings," . • • • • • t , ♦ Walnut compared normal high school students with high • * school stutterers,'students who.were-crippled,'or students' * • • • who had a cleft-palate. Comparisons were made on‘the; short farm-of the Minnesota Mult.iphaslc Inventory. Comparison in-.- • • . * . * , dicated that all groups were well within the normal range of personality. A comparison of stutterers and non-stutteiers indicated that the stuttering group had.slight indications of paranoid and depressive tendencies. Further’ , there was no significant difference in an item analysis of the re sponses of the stutterers when compared with those who were crippled or who-had a cleft-palate. In’addition, an.analy sis- of eleven areas set up for this study indicated that- in only the ’ areas designated "Speech -and School" -were abnormal reactions indicated by the•stuttering g ro up. ’ . . ’ Environmental studied of children. Moneur recently . ’ carried.out an intensive investigation of the environmental influences bearing upon-differences, between, children Who • • . . . 32 • ’ ’ ’ ’ • stutter dnd children who do not. -By use of Chi-square’ Speech Monographs. 19:l87“l8>8, August, 1952. (Abstract.) * * * . . • Francis Walnut’ , "A Personality Inventory Item Anal ysis of-Ihdivl’ duals’ Who Stutter and Individuals Who. Have • • Other Handicaps," . Journal of Speech -and- Hearing Disorders, 19:220-227, June;‘195^ ’ * ’ ■ • * • • • ^John P. Moncur, "Environmental Fdctors differenti ating Stuttering Children fromt Nc3n-Stutterlng Children," Ab-_ . stracts of Dissertations: Stanford’University. 2*6:303-3.05, ' • November 30, 1951- analysis for correlated -samples, he fouhd the following fac- * . ♦ . * ' * * ' tors to be present significantly more-'with' children who * ' . • « • stutter: mor.e adverse environmental influence, less ful- -fillijient of .basic needs’ , more symptoms of general maladjust- • i ment (exclusive of-stuttering)’, parents employing more' in’ - • * • * • • judicious and inconsistent disciplinary measures, more * * • f shocks and violent emotional upheavals, more .domination by- the siblings* mord parental.friction in the home; fewer -hap- * . • . • • py-family-shared experiences.,. more negative appraisal" of • conduct by mothers, more parental corrections, more anxious * * » • •mothers, and -more dominant parents. . . Two additional studies"by Moncur (one of which' was a further development of hi& dissertation study:) furnished • • .more evidence to indicate that the ‘ home life of the stutter- .er was .less favorable1 , and that the btutterer was less 'well adjusted than the non-stutterer'.33’ ; . • . In general summary of thi's "literature, "a review "of experimental studies, in which investigators attempted to differentiate the personalities“of stutterers from "non-stut- ’ terers, . " Indicated that-findings Were frequently con’ tfqdlcto- * * * * * * ry-.’ "Further; the-trend seemed to -be away from‘ support-for . •hypotheses which' contended that either (l) there were basic ’ . " ^JOhn P. Moncur, "Parental Domination ."in Stutter- * ing," Journal of Speech and’Hearing "Disorders’ , 17:155--l65, • June, 1952.;. arid -John P. Moncur, "Symptoms of ‘ Maladjustment 'Differentiating Young Stutterers from NOn-Stutterers,"1 Child Development. 26:91-96, June,. 1955- • • ♦ • J differences in the personalities of stutterers and non-stut- • terers, or (2) there was’ .a "stuttering personality." None- theless," most of the findings appeared to point out at least that stutterers'had, less than ideal emotional adjustment. • 4 ' • II.. RATIONAL STATEMENTS RELATING TO ' * _ ; • DIFFERENTIATION OF THE PERS9NALITY OF; * » • • . • ' . STUTTERERS PROM' NON-STUTTERERS * * . . * ■ . • * • * • Two types of- rational' statements were included in • this section.' One .type was related most directly to the self-concepts of those who' stutter. Only a few .of 'these .statements were.found in’the literature. Th§ other type was chosen to represent the psychoanalyticallyroriented*opinion that a’ stuttering personality 'did exist. There are-many of these statements available, but only a'few are included'here. Statements relating to self -Concepts. Johnson'a "s£mantoge'netic theory"- o'f stuttering was interpreted to ' ha.ve-'close relationship’both to the phenomenon, of •s.elf-'evAl- * * ■ ' • ' . * uation- and* to .the de.velopment- of abnormal speech, due to un1 - * * • * * ‘ • .-favorable seir-evaluatlon'. Johnson evidently feels that, a • • * • * •• • • * * • « • • person stutters because a.'labelihg process*has taken place. • . • . • * . • • • This.-process was seen as " self-conceptualization." • Further, " * • . * * * • , . • . Johnson- reported, that, speech was not the primary concern in ■ . • . . . . the problem of stuttarlrig. He felt that the .actual problem • • * • irfvolved mainly the perceptual an'd evaluative processes. 3-^ • • Another -theory,, which -recognized aspects of the self- * * * . * ' ' • * * • r conceptualizing process, was one which Sheehan termed ap- , ■ proach-avoidance."33 Of particular interest to the present study was his discussion of the ego-protectiveness of the ; ' stutterer. In relating this concept to the later stageh.’of » • , » * therapy, Sheehan mentioned that the stutterer "may have • » t * lived with his Stuttering so long that functioning wi-thPut ' • . • it involves too radical a change"in self-concept to be read- • * lly as-similated. "■5 ' Sheehan went on to' say that'with the ,acceptance, of•normality,’the' secondary g&lns of stuttering, * ' * ( , which had, assisted .in maintaining-the disorder', were not the only thing which would be'given up. The'stutterer also must'- / , • • develop 'a radically new and different self-.concept 'because • • * • * • * • • he -could no. longer use the rationalization that his stut- • • . . *-^7 tehing wap holding.him.back frpm making tremendous strides.0 ' • i * * . « • • ' « ♦ * * * • • Williams speculated'that stutterers were "not- dls- * - - • , • , tlnctlve ffom..other persons, 'either nqpro-physiologically or • # . . * • • qJ i t • ♦ • *•*' f * * Wen'dell'Johnson, 'in Eugene F., Hatin (ed.), Stu-tter- •Ing: 5ign‘ l'ficant Theories . and Therapies (2d ed. prepared by Elise. .S. Hahn; Stanford, California:' Stanford. University .'. Fress, 1956), p p 59-70. ' . • . *' . * • • • , ' 3*\jo3eph G*. Sheehan, in Eugene F. ' .Hahn ( ed.), Stut-' * ' . •terlhp;: • Significant Theories, and Therapies' (2d’ ed. prepared' by Ellse S- Hahcu;. Stanford, California: Stanford University . Fr.ess, 1956)., pp: 110-122. * . * • - • • . . • . . * 36Ibld. ,.p'. 118.- • . . 37Ibld.,"p. 119. * * * " • * wijth respect* to basic personality •structure. ' 3 He added ’ . that 1 variability should prompt the clinician to discontinue talking about stuttering as if it were a vague, undefinable. * • . * # » * entity within the person," but, instead, he should* discuss * * * ‘ it "as a specific response common to all persons who §tut-' ter."39 * • ’• ' * . * . . . • • • • t • ' Statements, relating, to the ." stuttering . personality" * Fenichel has‘been one’of the*most frequently quoted expd1 - nents of the psychoanalytic concept of stuttering. He clas sified stuttering- as-a pregenital conversion neurosis and- discussed-this -neurosis a,t' length. .Accqrding to Fenichel,' the function of' speeph for the stutterer* is based op the. . * anal-sadistic component. Speaking Is aq outlet for-obscene • and'-anal words and,- further, releases ^ggressi'veness. toward the listener-. ‘ ‘In addition, 'three: infantile components in.- * volve'd in' stuttering were reported. The'se component's -were the phallic', the oral and't'he exhibition!5tic. - The phallic component had. mearilng.-'because, for the-stutterer; to .speak . was‘ .'to be potent','.'while' to ..be unab-le .to speak Was to..'be cas trated.’. The stutterer coupled'hi3 oral, eroticism with-a de- sire to incorpo’ rate: obj-ec-ts.. Finallyt.he stutterer's ex'-', hlbitioniqtlc needs were, seen'-in his.need to use’omnipotent * o q . : m • Dean.E.. Williams, ' . ' A ' Point of View About 'Stutter ing, '" ’ Jourrtal .oT Sp'eech and-Hearing Disorders, 22': 390-397, September, 19$'7~ - * “ ~ . . •* .. • X m , w * - : • . . •••’ ’ . words for the magical control of an audience.• . • * • Solomon felt that stuttering was ”a specifically con- • • ditioned personality* emotive behavior and speech disorder • • • * • . Zll in tHe struggle for*equilibrium during*social speaking." • ' . * . * Coriat contended that stuttering was "essentially . . . a persistence into* adult** life of Infantile nursing activi ties. "42 ' • • • • . One of.the most recent rational statements relating * * • • to the "stuttering personality" came from Travis'. He de- • , • * * * • • * • • •scribed .the free associatlonal productions of stutterers in •analytic sessions with this strong statement**."It is our . .clinical feeling, amounting almost to a‘ certainty, that the type of materials We have been presenting is".practically, ex clusively paradigmatic of our. stuttering group. Summarizing-the rational statements review'ed, those who made theoretical contributions appeared -to have more' ’ * * * . . * definite, feelings about tfteir jp.osition than thos*e who made * * / AO * Otto Fenich.ei, The* Psychoanalytic The'ory of Neuro sis’ (j'Jew York: W. W.‘Norton and .Company, Inc., 1945J, pp. : 311-317* '• . ’ • ... 1 * . * * * ‘ * 4l. ** . , * * . * . . Meyer Soldmon, Stuttering as * an Emo.tional * and Per-^ sonality Disorder," Journal of Speech*Disorders . 4:3*17*“*3575 December, 1939* * * * : * • * , • # # * . * hb * *‘ * * * „ ' * • Ifiadoi; H. Coriat, Th* Psychoanalytic Conception of Stammering*" Nervous .Child. 2:167-17.1, .January, * 1943*.* * ’43 • . * ‘ **.•• ‘ * * * ■’ . • Lee IS. • Travis., "The Unspeakable Feelings* of Pepple,* ■ With Special Reference to ptuttering," Handbook of. Speech Patholbgy (New York! Appletph-£entury-Crofts, Inc . , .19*57) * •* pp.* 916-946*. •* • * * * * * ‘ ‘ • O . ‘ . 29 t • empirical contributions. .Most of the'theorists seemed to * • .organize research and experience into a* background £or con- • • 4 * tentions that the ’ stutterer has personality factors which • • • * * are distinct from those of the non-stutterer. • • III. LITERATURE PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT » i • . -OP THE TECHNIQUE USED IN THIS STUDY • ■ . .. While reviewing literature comparing the persbnall.-’, ’ * ■ t^e’ s of stutterers with non-stutterers, the ipvestlgator found’a constant .necessity to infer’ relationships from the ’ • • • « • * ’ re-search findings, to self-concepts within the communicative « 4* # ^ ^ pro.cesS.’ . Few studies took the-’direc’t approach df. using lan guage itself fof* an- evaluative ’ tobi. The -majority of'the * 4 < * ' 1 * * * •*! research was based upon the "inferred essence." • of. certain 8 * 4 , ■ * * I 4 ' 4* psychometric ’ or.evaluative’devices, i.e., the Rorschach,' •• * , / . • • 4 * Thematic Apperception Test, etc. • ... ’ . • . • * ^ *,4 t ^ • To relate*personality.and speech through a psycholex- • * * • . . ‘ ’ical* approach seemed potehtl’ a-lly-’ valuable in order to gain.a " • * * ' • S • , t *4« better understanding.of .the ‘ self-rbflexive.* nature of speech'. • • ... * * . « . ••*’ . • • ’ •.*• . . .’ • t i t The probl$m*.a£ the. investigator *be.came one of developing'an appropriate technique; 'alienable to objective measurement, . * « * H • * * t . • . wh-ic^’ coUldbd’ used for-differentiating between,certain ;• . ’ groups . The more important sources..used i’ n developing this* • • « « t • » . » ' • * • * * . . . • • • * 4 * * • technique were reviewed for this ^section. • • • *’ * . • • . .• . • • • ... . * . Allport set the stage for*.the develbpment ®f the* • ’ * • * • . * • *. • *• * ■ •/ present day adjective check list. ’He made the statement • • .. a o • • • • • •_*••• • * ft that the nature of. thq psychologist's work forces' him to . * • ’ ’. * ; . * ’ seek out and to*identify mental .structures and sub-struc- • * • tures" such as needs, sentiments’ , habits, traits or.attl- ’ . * • tudds, "and to name them • . . . Only verbal symbols (amblgu- ous and troublesome as they are) seem appropriate."^ The technique devised specifically for the present • » . i sttody was essentially a modification of an adjective ‘check • • • list developed by GoUgh and in**common use at the University * . • . • . * * M of C.alifornia Institute of Personality'Assessment'and Re- _ . i* • • • « » * . 45 . * . . . . . search. The check list .concept was established* becau.se of • * * * . : a need to develop descriptive'.terms which we:re ’ ’meaningful, ' • • . * • * • • • ^ i • * sufficiently complex in scope to co.ver the'ordinary range'of. behavior observed," and/ "suscejati'ble of systematic analy-'.*. H U& * • * * • • sis:. , • -The check list seertied to meet, these requlremjents*. In further, elaboration. Gough mentioned, that at the Tnsti- ' • ..... • . * * . " . ’ tute-of Personality 'Assessment and Research, "other response • f.orifis 'siich as Q-sorts, 'distributed ratings-, etc.', have- beefv tried wi’ th the adjective-, lls.t . . . Respite the us’ e of • •*,* * * • » **'**• ***** th.ese more pdpular techniques, Gough .contends-, 1 1 no. superior7* itie's sufficient to. outweigh 'the virtues of. thd simple check • * . . • , * " - . ' "44 ' • • • ...*-. Gordon W., Allport-and Henry S. Od-bert* • Trait Names: A'Psycho-lexical Study,.'" Psychological Monographs, 47:171, ' • * 1936; • * ' 1 * . . ’ . ' ' . . ' 45 * * • • • ‘ ‘' .'*.',* Harr.ison Gs Gough. ."Reference Handbook for the; Qough. Adjectivd (5heck-£ist1 (Berkeley: The University of. California Institute of Personality Assessment 'and Research, April, 19$5). (Mimeogrdphed'.)' . . • . . •' ' ' 6 ' * . ’ ' • 47 . ’ • Ibid., p. 1. . ' '-ibid., p. 3- * . • . • : • 3i. li§t m&thod have*yet. be.en discovered. This superiority * does not * hold,’ ’ however, .when the.check list is use’ d for • * * J ♦ m • "more" complicated, inferential, phrases and statements."^’ . . . . . • * * • It lends Itself admirably, though, to research which deals* * • • ' * * . with self-concepts. . • * • * * • • • « * * * • . • ' Further elaboration .of check list methbdplogy was /• * * i • # . » , * • • • 1 * * . given by Sartfin and Rosenberg*. 'They reported- the check , •*" * *.** * ' CQ # llbt's successful .use in.differentiating between groups. ’ * . * . ' • * • * * §arbin 'and Rosenberg discussed; in the theoretical .introduc- # * * * % tion* to their -article, the rationale.basic to obtaining* -V* * ’ • ‘ ■ * ' • ' ' ‘ ' . * 'measurements of qualities. 'This rationale"pointed out .the '* . . . . • t • . necessity of antapproach which would find -out what-'a person ' * * . • •* * • • .-"Is" rather -then what he "does."; These.researchers/assumed that "English syntax dictate? the .use of adjectival forms of . *Words’*for qualities or'attributesThe language forms which were observed -to be in customary .use "were tjie "vehl- * * * • * * • * .cles" that conceptualise the-self '"with adjectival terms."?1, * ■ '‘Thud, in reviewing literature basic to-the develop-, -ment-of the.technique-used in the present "study, the adjec tive check list appeared tp.be. a measuring de.v-ice which ’ * could be.* readily adapted .-to evaluating apy differences which .". . ’ .^8Ibid. - ~ . . ’ * ' * ; ■ ' ■ ^ Ibid. - . ' p. *17. ' . *•' SO ’ - T. R. Sarpin and B. 0. Rosenberg, "Contributions/ to ’ Role-TalpLng Theory: IV.*1 A Method for Obtaining a Qualita-. . * -ti^e* Estimate qf the Self,'" The J ourn'al of' Social Psychology." • 42r? 1 8i, , January, 1955- - * ;*'..'. • _ . * . • * • 51Ibld. . p * . * 71..’’ ' ■ * • 32 • * • * . might exist betwejsn the self-concepts of those who stutter . . * • and those who do not*. . • * A . * . . CHAPTER III • • * • PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND PILOT {STUDY * • * . * • • • * . • • . Because the major study was to make use of an untried • • • . • • modification, of an. adjective check list,- it-was felt that • % * * * preliminary investigation, Including ‘ an actual pifot study, would be-necessary. Such investigation and study . could pro- * . * • . • • • • • • • J ^ 9 * vide Important information which would be useful in ref’ ine- . * * . . • .* ment bo.th’of the technique and the procedures. The**preliml-‘ • • * **••••• * * , * • • • • m 'nary investigation and the pilot study are described in this * * . * * • , chapter’ . • . ' • • • , . ‘ ' • ’ • • • * • • • * ’ **«•**• • • . • • • • • ■ • * * • • ^ # i ^ • .'I. PROBLEM • . « * * « , *• * . • * ' ’ . The pilot•study-was-developed essentially to dipcovdr •any relationships’'Ijetwe.en the self-acceptance'of. boys who. •'stutter ' a - nd boys whb do not'. .'■••’ • • . . . • ' 'Results* of the pilot study were to. be con side-red only • ***** * * tentative, ‘ because of the possible, lack of. refinement. Thus; conclusions arising from* an .Analysis' of data whibh-related_ to. .the stated ^problem' of the major study, wobld. be'considered soiely for their value.in pointing'toward the' potential'ef-.' " * • . * , ’ . * • • • • ’ - Tectivenes.s of the" technique .as a rneasurlng. device, of. self- • * • • * • * * • * ***# * *«*.' . * • • t • concepts. . ‘ . .'...• * * • * / ^ • * • . • . • * • • , ' » . * • * * . • # • \ ’ •• *.* *11. ’ • -SUBJECTS . • • ' * * • • • • • • * • . * • . . Sikteen male subjects, selected from the fourth and eighth grades of the public schools lmthe Santa Rosa, Cali- • # * • * • • * " * fornia, area, took part iq .the pilot study. Eight stibjdcts • • • t • * were diagnosed to be stutterers either by the* classrOonu • • ’ . . • * * teacher, a school administrator of a public school speech •* * * ’ • • , therapist. All diagnoses were verified by* a qualified * • •'*•*••• •**••*• * speech therapist whq*holds basic clinical’ certification in • . * * • the American Sp.eech and Rearing.Association. The other * • • . ’ • ***** • , ' \ eight, subjects were dpnsidered by the' same, speech therapist’ • * * . • • • » * to be non-stutterers. *A matched*pair • of tine; subject from « j i • . • * • • • • • • * * * •••**• J * • each grou’ p-was. selected-6n the following basis: . . /. # • * • • * * . . 1.’ Chronological age,, wi't'hin*.three months. . * • * • • ' , * • - ' • • . 2. • Recorded or computed IQ; Within'ten points*.' * * ,*• • ♦ » * , * • i •*.*• 3 . . ' Father1 s occupation,-within‘the .same classific'a*- # .t'ion, group;on. the Minnesota Scale of ParentaVOccfupationk. 4.. . Same- grade level. • . . ' ' .. ' ' ’ • . ‘ The matching criteria'were • suggested by Anderson.3- • . ' ^Johri-Ei Anderson, 'Methods'of Child Psychology," Manual o'f Oh'lld' Psychology’ (2d.ed.,; New York:' John -Wiley, and Sons, Inc’ ., ’ 195^), pp» 1.-59- This article -also describes . . the ‘ Minnesota Scale o'f - Paternal Occupations by ‘ Go'oderlough and. Anderson as'"follo.ws:' • • *• . - • Class ■ ' : I - . ’ • Professional • . ■ •• • • .' .Class, II. Semi -prof e'sslonal and 'managerial . • " .‘ Class III.* Clerical,-skilled trades, an'd retail. ' * ... . ' ' '.business : Class., ' Iv " . • .Farmers ' ..*... . . . .Class' . V. Semi-skilled, occupations, minor .clerical - . . ’ . ' * . positions, and-minor, business . .. '• Class .VI. Slightly skilled trades aind occupations ' requiring'little .training or ability * " . . * Class VI-Is" I?ay laborers o'f all classes' (including • • • ' 'agriculture) • '...*..’ o • -• .35* • •• • • ♦ * Selection of the fourth and eighth* g.rades was inten- ’ * • tional. The fourth grade appeared to be the earliest grade ‘ * * , l'evel-a't which ’ subjects would bffable bo respond Independent- # • * ** • * * • • * 'ly to 'the reading task* of the ad'jectlve check list’ . The : • • • * • * * * • * * eighth grade wa's selected because, when ’ subjects were com- * ■ • . * • “ • . • , • 1 • pared-with fourth* grad.ers, matura-fcional aspects might be * • • a • * • . • • . • * * * * . measured*.* . Such a choice might also’ provide important .blues ’ ‘ - ’ ; *. ' • for-'further1’ understanding of’^arly adolescence. . . * • • * . * • • . • , . * . * • . Statistical inforrnqtti-on about the subjects, according, * , • •*.*.•*"« * • , , to the piatohing criteria, we're: • ' * ... . ’ • * • • • ’ . . • *.’ . ■ . * • • , * * , • * * * t . Fourth grade . f N =-4’ stutterers4 hon-stdtterers): '1..’Mean .chronological .age:--'.Stutterers,'1.0-0; non-’ ■* stutterers’ , 10-0. . . . . * • • * . . ' 2.* 'M'ean IQ scores:’ .Stutterers1 , -97 ■ 5; • non-stutterer si ’ 98. . •3-. Father's occupational. 1'evel.s* . Class ’I-II>. 3’ stut terers-and 3 non-stutterers; .Class V,* 1 .Stutterer and 1 non-■ stut’ terer. - . . . • *:’ ’ ' * * •* * * * * • • • ' ^ t > • • • » * , • * » ♦ Eighth .grade (N = 4 ’stutterers; *4 non^stutter’ er.s*)• . : • -I- *’ Mean’ .chronological’ age: ’’ Stutterers, .14-4-; non- sttitterers; -14-4.’. • . . * , ‘ . . . * ' . *;’•*. .*. . * " • ... * * , ' * • , * * . . 2. Mean”IQ scores: Stutterers, .101: non-stutter’ ers-*, • * * , , ♦ f * • • • • 99.75. /**' ' * . ■ * •; - * * ■ ■ * . . . . . * . •3. .Father1 s ’ocdup^tiona.1. levels : ’ Class III, 3 stut-’. ’ • * '**..* . . * • • • . • * . . terers and 3 .non-stutterers';* Qla’ &s y, 1 stutterer and.l.non- % • *. . : ' • • • x stutterer. • . » • •• • * * * • • The statistical information indicated that the sub- * ^ m • * I • * • • Jects were closely matche'd on th’ rep -bases. • . . -. ' • .‘-III. .TECHNIQUE . . . ‘ - * • * • * * * • * • * # » i # , * ’ • • * '• • • • * The major study dealt with differences in. children oi* • • ’ elementary school -age.- Hence,- it was necessary 'to make mpd— • • * * * .ifications in the method described, by Gough. • Gough's adjec- ••••*/ . s s - • tive c-heck'lists we.re. designed fbr • col lege,-age students. • • , * / • , , » ' 4 * Basis for - the* choice o'f words-.• To assure' readability '.for the younger', subjects', d&Jectives'.were chosen on the' ‘ . ‘fo.urth 'grade' level of difficulty:- A reliable source .of'vo cabulary -for elementary‘ .school children ..was .consulted.‘ 5- 'On-'. ly'those'adjectives whioh were in’-the .first‘four thousand ' . ' * * • . • ' • ' words of recognition for t?oth fourth'and eighth-graders were, .to be ..selected. .Further, only, adjectives which were ‘de's-crip-, tiv.e of. personality-attributes were ‘to'.be .used! • By- t^e proc ess of inspection-,. 201 .adjectives..were-found which -met. these criteria.^ . • ' . ‘ ' . • • • • ' ' ' • • • t V ' % , I ♦ *!*, *• * * * — * . « ' , • * ' • * • \ 2 • " • * • • * •. . Harris.on-G*. Gough, ‘ 'Reference Handbook, for the-Gough Adjeqtlv'e Check-Li’ s't" • (BerkeleyTh'e University ..of Califor nia Institute, of‘Personality. Assessment arid Research, April-,’ .1955)- (Mimeographed..) . . . • • . . . * • * * . * •_ • » « • * . * 3 * • * • . * * • • Henry J?- Rinslan.d, A Basic Vocabulary!‘ - of Elementary ' • School Children. (-New York:, The Macmillan' Company, 19^5l\ ' ("By the University of Oklahoma.’) . ' .• • . - • • • • • : . . . * • • . - . s - .. - ■ See App,endlx A", p. 103 . - . . • ^ Judging the .ad*1ect*lves. Thirty-four fudges were . * • * • * • * • » asked to evaluate the 201 adjectives. The .judges were se- * • • , . . 1-ected primarily-because they were professionals who were * * * , • ' . • ' * • directly invol-ved with children.’ An a.ttempt w*as made’ to in- . * * * • * elude individuals who- had special knowledge, and .training of. speech ’ therapy or personality theory. Following are the categories-and the number of- judgfes. in each:.- elementary school’ teachers;! 11; elem.entary’ supervisors, 6; school'psy- ch'o-logist's, 4 ; - . speech therapists, 6; clinical .psychologist’ s, • 3; school administrator, 1- ; psychometrist,.. 1; .public health nurse,. 1; and- gui’ daric.e specialist., ,-l.‘ • ' ■ • ‘ • According, to information ‘ fufnlshed-by the Judges,; the. mean number of year’ s of their experience with children was. . 9‘ . ’ 26 and’the-mean’ number .of years of their collegiate ..train ing was 5-,5* Thirteen of the group .had special-, training in bpeech problems-of-children/ .Twenty-one!ha;d some background •lh personality theory. ■ ’■ . “ . ’ . . • : The-thirty-four, judges Were asked to respond- to-a' ‘ three-choice check: lj.3t upon which the 201 adjectives • ’ had * ' • , » , * been* li-s.ted.;-alphabetlcally. . They’were1‘ asked f c < p check V/hether • or not a particular-adjective was ■ favorable, unfavorable,. or .lacking ability t0 des9ri.be personality. 1 ■ • ’ . . . . - . ' .*. • ■ - . . . . . . *. • . . . • .- • .- . • • • * - \ ‘ ‘ Selection- of judged* words and’ \desigri Of thre techhiqu’ e! * . • • ’ • • • • • • • * '• * , • ' , • • * fin equivalent number of favor.able ‘ and unfavorable adject'ivds • #*• 1 ' 1 » * • . • * • , * ‘ wa^ made.’available Ton. presehtation to subjects. .The fre- * • • * ' • • ... • . * quency“distribution bf the. tall’ y of .the judgesj choices * * .indicated that an even number would be available if the • * • • # • * • * • first sixty* were taken from each’of .the* categories., 'favor- * ’ . « • * • • * ' . able and’unfavorablei 'This selection process made available . • • * • ( d list of.-i20 adjectives. • These 120 ad'Jectives were placed. one each oh blank 3x5-inch file cards. • Their order of* ap-* ' V • ' • ’ • . * ’ pe.arance" was determined by shuffling a deck of* cards which . had been.numbered from 1 ' to 120. The. list number’was' **,« • * , * * * • matched-with each corresponding number card as if was ' - turned •up.. • • 1 • / * , . . . . . ■ ‘ . . Thus., the. technique for .the pilot s.tudy. consisted of * • • • * ' * a pack of '-120 3x5;-incti file, 'cards which hpd an' adjective ' . typed on ope side and. a number., upon the.-other. '-The pack was always maintained in'consecutive order-from 1' to 120. iV. PROCEDURE . ' . • . ■ ' ■' ' . . - - . Only • the; experimenter--arid one .'subject .were together' • for. each presentation of' the cards.. In each school,, ah-'- rarigements were' made- for the uninterrupted use of a -room. Where the availability o*f-a match/permitted, both subjects were tested, in the same room. Each subject, was.obtained by' 'the customary school practice for -bringing children'from.’ ■ ■ their- classroom's. . . ' '' - . , •Rapport was established .through a discussion"explain- ing'the selection of the subject. No. mention .was made to ’ • • * . . • . * : * . * • . * . . . * • the subject th£t the experiment h^d any relationship to any- • • • * «*•* * * •thing-more* definite than ans at tempt.*to*: find those’words • which were used, by ‘ fourth and eighth grade boys in describ7 i ^ * * ing'themselves. . . ’ * • * The-following, instructions were read to the’ subject,: . / * . * . * ; These cards have words on them whi'ch are used- to. de- . -'scribe people; . . . . I want you t-o make, two piles with’ . • ' them.* Put ip” ' one pile the words that describe you and/ in the other .-pile’ - , put the words that don■'t. describe you. ' If you don't know a word, skip.it and put it-in the pile; with'the words that don't • describe"you: .Please think • carefully abQut the words a’ nd try' to be honest‘ in se- lec.tlng those which-describe you, ' / * ‘ The paeli'of .card’ s-was- then jplaced before -the'subject-and* he was instructed; 1 1 All right: Go’ ahead.".’ • . /• - ..’ . ’ , - Answers to'direct questions made-by' the subject were; • given, by .repeating the exact section of- the instructions . ' which-related.‘to the question. No -time limit 'was. imposed. .When .the 'subject-had -completed his sorting,' he was- . excused’ and..hls...s&laction"wa&- tallied .on .a. prepared scoring ■sheet... Following the tally, the. cards'were' res'tohed'to- c'on’ - •secutlve order’ . , - . ' ' . ' • • ' ’ ' * • • * ' ' • ’ y.'. RESULTS ' . . .- *,** • ♦ • * • * ^ , * • • ..Data-gathered from’ .the pilot study we.re ana-iyse.d only 'to ch'ec.k the evaluative ability* of ‘ the : -tecbnique., and not t<? make meaningful te'sts. of. hypotheses bearing* upon the-.*p’ ,endlrig • ■. . . . ’ • • •. • ■; • . problems of .the .main study. . •• . . • • • ... . . . • ... . •• * . i « * • < • • * • • • * ■ » • . ' • ' Method o'f analysis. 'For purposes of the-pilot . ’ study, 7/ • % . • . • * • ... ••• * * ## the test of the .significance* of the 'dlffqr^nce’.between, the / • • • .means of .two. small aorpelated samples describ’ ed by. Smith was ( C * * • * » Used. ‘ This* procedure of t test seemed mast adaptable* to* • • the ‘ data’ . * . I-t Indicated possible further .use* in -the major • • . . • • . • study. ."•*... '..*.* . • • * • • . * * • * : • * Findings .of the pilot study. *A t* score of .3^3 was . " , ■ ■ • f # • ob.tained for. the fourth-grade comparison.- At**three degrees. of freedom, -t-he P-value at .05 was .8. which indicated very • • • ♦ • slight differences between the. two groups*. • ' . .A t> score ‘of ‘.575 was'obtained fop the eighth gr-adp comparison..* .At'three degrees of-freedom, the -P value at ..05 was* 18. • ' . ; .-.*;' On the.-strength of these highly ’tentative' findings,' . it appeared that* there was no. significant.'difference between the 'self-’ concepts- of' boys who stutter and boys who dp. not'• ; -stytter.. However,, with, such'a small sample, and with'the-' recognition in’the preliminary investigation .that further ' refinement, was necessary in the technique'and. procedures';,- these'results were.not .taken to .be conclusive or--reliable.' * . , . * • * • • • • *' ' • ' VI / MODIFICATION'S BROUGHT. AIJO.UT' ' " . '* . ’ . "*' \ • ' ;UY THE RESULTS OF *THE.'pIl6t STUDY ' • . * * . . The .pilot study-provided valuable information which'" added to the.refinement of' • the .major study/ as folLows: ' * *.*•... • ■•*.• *: • * . .* ■. . .. ...*...*. ♦ Subjects. ' Only'subjects* should* be.bhds£n, who .have. * • • • * C* * * * * * • 6. 'Milton Smith,* A* Simplified Guidb to Statistics (New York*f‘Rinehart and Company, 19^6).- • ' . I • • . ' . * • • • *• ^ * • * •. *• . fiormal mejital ability.* An- lQ..oi? at-least ninety should be* * • *. • ' . • • • . • » • * * * • § • * required ahd also approximate grade-level reading ability.. * » 1 • ^ * * Thps’ e two criteria would give ‘ greater, assurance that the • * • ; .* • ’ . - * * . test* .was measuring s'elf-concepts* rather than bei-owVnormai * mental-capacity or-reading disability.- • . • . • . • Technique. ■ The format sh.ould be simplified. Too •many adjectives‘ had been chosen in the pilot-.study.-list.. -'A ' redu-ctlpn seemed'necessary tp prevent -fatigue and to-main- ’* tain the interest ‘ of -t.he .'.subject: • ‘ • . . . ' ; . A check list in a booklet form, seemed to answer the- • requirement.for.a'simpler new formats This form-had-several desirable advantages'. ■ The ease-of administration-'could- be . ‘increased. Scoring errors-.would be decreased .because-.the •"actual .recorded responses o'f a subject'could be saved. . . . A • chebk list, would encourage speed-in selecting adjectives.-. This ^increase, in speed'would enhance, the .potential accuracy . . ' of' the. . ‘ completed^ self-rdescriptfon by' obtaining -an' early as sociation.. '-In addition, a most'important contribution of •the booklet would be .In its adaptability-to.'a reliability study involving' a large sample. / ■ ' • ■ '' ■ * ‘ Definltiveness. of terms.. The' need' for -less ambiguity * • . * • . * . * . . * , *s * 4 . ‘in trie adjectives^ *wa‘ s indicated. To .meet .this- ^lodi•ficatlon•• of the pilot study list,‘ .a ^b.*per cdnt agreement of judg'es » . ■ . . . - - . ■ . - . * • • * •*** « . * 4 . « *wa*s set .as a criterion of‘selection of’any., wo.rd.; This crl- . ‘ • • • • • * * • * • • . . .’ *.•*. • • terien would'mean that-.any a*dj.*eptl’ ve use’ d w'ould; have been *• . • . . : . • ; -42 • agreed upon by at least twenty-seven of‘ thirty judges. . ‘ ’In oonciuslon,’it appeared that a technique, which would be adaptable to1 the requirements of the major study, • • « • * * * * •had come fhom the’expedience of this preliminary-.investiga tion . . • ’ • • . 1 • ■ - " . . . CHAPTER IV. . ’ • • • •* ’’ ..SUBJECTS, ’TECHNIQUES.'AND- PROCEDURES , . • • • • • ; t)P- THE MAJOR STUDY’ . . 1 ' . " ' . ’ • . . Preliminary investigation reported -in Chapter III in- 'dicated that -an experimental. study' of' the relationships- be tween, .the sqlf-concepts of boys who.'stutter- and boys who do •not Stutter, was feasible -by using a-modified adj'eg.tive -.check list:’-The analysis of a-pilot study suggested-, certain re- finemerits which;.were carried out. '.It'is, therefore,' the- - purpose 'of 'this chapter to describe .the-subjects used, both •'in the comparative aspects' of. the -major study .and ‘ in the re- •■liability study-. • The' 'development and explanation-of tech nique' in- its -final- forni .and the procedures, followed in'ob- • talrilng--subject, responses to'the technique are also de- . scribed.' • - - ' . ' , : . . I. THE. SUBJECTS . ' ' • - . .. . .'.Sixty male subjects, evenly.'distributed'betweqp' the . ' fo’ urth arid eighth'grades; participated-i'n the. comparative . ' 'aspect's of'-.this main study. '.-Th.ey Were,'selected 'from-the • . • * * ' * * * ' * ' public schools of•Sacramento, City- and -County4 -from. Petaluma City in Sonoma County and from Sari. Rafael City-in* Marin • ' Co'Unty, all .in northern California/ Thirty were ‘ .dlagnpsed-*.. * i • * * . • . * * . , ‘ ■ by'a credentialed speech therapis-t a’ s'being stutterers. the i • i « * • \ * . • ’ otherb .were’’selected, oo *the* basis 6f certain'matching** • criteria by .the. investigator'through searching’School 'cumu-. * * • • • , • • • ♦ • . • ' • * * lative record filea. . . . • ' . • . • . . • ‘ ‘ Subjects were required to hav.e a minimum of either a.-'-, recorded -or .a 'computed IQ' of ninety- points, or above* • in ad.- ‘ d'ltion, thjey must 'have .had a.t. least third 'grade reading * * * ' ' ' i •.ability in'the previous'fdll-achievement testing program. . •Subjects we.re closely'matched on'the following vari- . . . •ables: . ; ' . • 1. .■Chronological age-, within ■ three mOn.ths . 2. ftecprded or computed IQ-withiri 10 points-. ' • ■ ■ ■ :. * • 3V Fathe’ r's occupation within the same classific'a- ; - . tion..group (on-the Minnesota Scale of 'Parental- OccupationsV. . . • • ; 4-. 'Same grade level'.' ■ '. ' ’ • . - • . • ‘ . • . . .Throughput the study, the' boy s. who. stuttered were . considered .the‘exp dr intent al group, while the boys’who.did • • not ’ stutter .were considered as .controls. • ■ ' ■ ; • ", ‘ . . 1 ■ ’ ’ • • . • • • • : - • ' ■ : .Various.-statistical analyses .were made of-the sub- / jecbs... - The-, mean chronological age in months, variance 'an,d' F . • scores ‘ are--ail presented..in Table I.’ . • ’ ' - 'The results 'of such analyses-indicated that'the-' . matching of-subjects on'chronological age.-wa: s sufficient ‘ to Eliminate dlfferenc.es in. age-as a-po-ssib'le variable which- might adversely., -influence-- the test.-results. • . . . • : ■ The'results of the analysis-presente'd in' Table- II in- • dicated*that there .were no. significant differences-between population variances* on any. of the matchings- on the variable . TABLE I ! ■ . ’ • ‘ ' • ANALYSIS OF SUBJECTS1 CHRONOLOGICAL‘ AGES * (In Months*) . ’ • .Grade N Group• Mean •(Mos .*) • df* 1 s.; F . . ' ' .p •4’ 15 • '*Exp: 117.67. -. . 14 • 14’ .10 • • • . \ 117.47 14 * ■ • ' . 1.123: 0 % • A • 15- Con... 12 ,55 . 8 15.' . • Exp • 167.13 14* 19:69 * . . • * •1.122 <5% • 8 : I?’ ■ Con.' 167.40 -14 •• .24.11 • ■ TABLE' II > • : ANALYSIS OF INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS • OF FOURTH AND EIGHTH GRADE. SUBJECTS. • • Gri.d,e.■ . N'-‘ Group.' ■ Mean . • ■ ' '(IQ) • ' • S- F • ; • p . •4- . 15". Exp.' 104.53 ' • 14- 202.55 • , • . • , • • ' . .1.122- • <5^. • .4.' i-5.' • -Con. . -105-89 • 14 180' . 50 * . '"8 • ' •15 • • Exp. ' '.108,46 " 1-4 135.26 • * . • • \ * " • : 1.232 • <5% ; *.8 15 • • . ' Con.' . • 108* . 1.3 ' • 14' •166.69 • • ,o'f intelligence .quotients. . This similarity showed that in- * * • * * I 4 | tellectual ability, m'easured by g^oup intelligence- t'est-s; , • • ♦ * • * • • * • • • * * ’•was probably not an influential variant in the major-study.. - . The, distribution of‘the fathers' occupational',-clasei- , •’ * * • • • • fications, T-able III, shows-similarity (from-Class-I through .Class III)'with what might roughly.be.expected from a normal distribution. Matching was by pairs to.,elijninate imbalance * * * 1 • in any pair because of variance in -socio-economic status'. • The Table demonstrates . ’ that balanced distribution was the case. • , ' . ' • . ' ’ • • - ‘ • . . • TABLE’ -.iii-’’ . . . . . . ■ DISTRIBUTION OF'FATHERS' OCCUPATIONAL- ’ • ' - . • ' • CLASSIFICATIONS',, , ' " . !- * Class' ■ • . I II Ill IV V VI - vi- i * XU J . b *. 4 ' Exp. 1 : 4 9- . . i ! -.15 ; - . 4 ■ - Con.' . 1, .,.4' • ' ' 9- ■; . r . ‘15 ‘ 8 . ’ Expy 2 3 ■ ' 10 i 4 . ‘ 8 . . Con. . . '2 • 3 : • . 15 - ’ Total-N= .6..14 • 38 2 . ' '6o' . . ' • ' The distributions of-.sample siz.es in all three‘ Tabies ' . appear: ‘ to be sufficient-support for/ the. statement -of equal!- • ’ ty-in representation’from/-each group of .subjects and-each • grade level.1 .. : . , * ’ . ; • * • * * * » 1 * ' . . * . * - • ‘ . Location of subjects. The-subjects were located, • * *•*/' * * * * * * ■through five agencies or sources(l*.) speech therapists of the city‘school district of, SaCramento, -(2)‘ bpeech ttiera- ’ pis.ts' of .the county' school districts-of Sapramento-Coiin ty, •(3)-the speech therapist of the city-of Petaluma, (-4) ‘the speech therapist of.the .city of. San Rafael-^ arid (5-)'*frCm a . general'.group of administrators', counselors; school psychol-.. ogis.ts arid teachers of- school-districts which-did riot employ any 'spee'ch therapists.-. Referrals , from.'these, .sources were ' * screened to'verify•the'diagnoses of stuttering and also-the qualification.of subjects to participate in the- study... Table’ IV gives' the- breakdown‘of the 'agencies or sources from.' which''subjects -were, obtained- ‘ • • . 'table'TV . • ' ' . ' - AGENCIES OR-SOURCES-FROM WHICH SUBJECTS WERE OBTAINED ••.-Referring- - Fourth Grade Elgh'th'Grade totals 'Agency -or Sotirce - * E • c- • ■ -E C •Sacramento -City 8 , * 1 1 10 - . . i -• Therapists - r • Sacramento,. County 4 • ~ ■ . • i 5 . Therapists" T • • . Petaluma City f • ' I ♦ * * 1 . .. Therapist ' . • • * * * * San- Rafael City 1 • * • • * 1 Therapist . , , •General-. Survey of Schools 1' . ' 15 13- • 14*, • • * 43 : . • - ‘ Totals » • 15-'• ' ' i? .15 . , 15. • 6o • • ' . * . . . II.. THE TECHNIQUE .. . • ■ • • * • • ♦ • a * • a ' • • ’* The .technique used to pompare the stutterers.-with the • * a • a • • • • • • * jionrstq.t.terers 'specified an. adjective oheck’list booklet.df sixty-four words,.*.thirty-two of which’had; be-en judged favor able, dnd thirty-two of which’ had been judged -unfavorable.. . . • • * • * . « * * * * * * a • * * * -These’ -Words had been-evaluated from a list’ -’of 201 adjectives according to-’ each- adjective1 s’ fayorability,. unfayorabllity, or. lack of discriminating ability in describing personality. Adjectives selected by- at least twenty-seven of thirty / / a * * * • * * * a / 'judges ’ formed ;the*final check list; since.the criterion, for. -acceptance-had'beeh. sfet ;a-t. 90-per-cent or-more agreement." Randomization, by a table- of numbers’ was necessary-to assure ’ balance between favorable..and unfavorable. adjectiyes at 'each taTl-ied frequency of judge agreement--twenty-Sevenj twenty- . ' •eight; twenty-nine and- thirty.' The sixty-four words were' then'.assigned 'a ..position on the check list from--a table of - random, numbers. . . • ’ .. . ' ‘ - - • . The. favorable'adjectives'selected . ‘by'the', process de1 pcribed above- , according to the tallied, frequency of judge agreement; were:' - 30, cheerful, friendly’ , happy, honest-, In’- . **•«*»* * ' ‘ • ••• t'erestlng, kind, kindly, loved and, pleasant; 23, fine,- he'lp- * * ; ' * * ' .ful; interested,--.just,, loving'and polite; 28-,.'able’ - , attrac’- * • * * • , *• ••• tive, comfqrtable, gay, good, lau’ ghing,'neat, ’ popular, - wise * * apd wonderful;. 27.i alive, bright, careful, fair, sunny, ’’ • ’ • * • * # ■ thankful'and us’ eful. The unfavorable adjectives selected by ’ •" . ' •thiq same process, according to the’tallied frequency of. judge agreement, were: /.30, careless, crabhy, crosp, cru'el, * . * * ' • • eyilj. mad, mean, selfish and* unhappy j 29,*l>ad, dangerous, . . • * * * * * Jealous*, ionely, terrible and weak; 28, afraid-; &wful., dense, frightened.,. iaz$, -lying,' sad, Scared, sodr arid worried;. 27,• backward, bothered, .hated, lonesome, ‘ s-1 ok, spoiled and .-tired. • J.udglng Was done by professionals .who dealt with children. The .Judges'for the- majbr study and their prof'es-■ Biona-1. categories follow: teachers, 9>■ speech' therapists-,. 6; elementary-.consultants, 6; school- psychologists, 3-j clinical psychologists, -2; school, administrator, 1; public health- . • nurse,. 1; psychometrls’ t, 1; and. .guidance specialist, -1. The' judges', group had-a-mean-..of 9.23-years of-experience-with • children an'd 'a mean of- 5.•’ ^8.ybars’-of collegiate training in • preparation for professional'-work with--children..• Thirteen- .of'the judges' . . -group had had sppcl-al ‘speech training for ■ • children, . while eighteen, had had some .background in-person,-’ ality the.ory: • . • . ; .Before, deciding- 'upon-.-the final wording of the instruc tions, a-number of booklets' were’ prepared and distributed to all. members of‘ one•fourth grade classroom without any oral * instructions'.- A .preliminary draft of written instruction's had be.en placed'upon the booklet-'s face, sheet. "Pupiis. were * • • a t •*♦ , • •asked to complete the bob-klet without the instructions being read aloud to* them.' They'were-’alscr. instructed to raise *. their hands-if they had.any questions.* The-se questions, to- • . *• * • . • ' • * * • * gether with disqussion comments * following th,e • testing, were, • * * » rioted for‘use In modifying procedures and instructions!* * • • • * * • • . ; This • ’ experience* led to the decision to read the. instructions orally to. fourth graders. . The final draft df the written 1 * • * * * ' * • * * 1 , • • • • • • instructions was also* modified. An-’exampl-e’ -pf the final • t . • • * ’ _ check list booklet' can be ’ seen i'n Appendix Bv . ’ ’ • * • • * • * • „ • * « * • ’• • ’ -JIT. .’ reliability STUDY t . ,'A reliability*study .was Indicated to provide a-basis. for adequate Interpretation .of.data arising from administer ing''the check list to-the subjects. Therefore, a large- : t . ' . , , ‘ , t * .sample;reliability;study was- undertaken-In the Santa Rosa * City'Schools. ' ' . • . ’’ • ■ ’• • . . Administration-of the eighth grade’tests was done by., •■the school psychologist of that school district, while the- * ‘ i ‘ * * • • * fourth- grade [.tests wer.e given ’ by .classroom teachers .-■ All; 1 • i / * • * * .classes’.selected canje’-f.rom the. randomized’ , assignment’of rank in accordance, with standard procedures... •’. * * • In’ keeping, with • the criteria for-a. subject ’ of the ma jor study, fifty-five’'fourth graders-and. fifty-three’eighth graders Were. qualified and’were’present ’ for both the te-st. and-the-retest..- The test-.re.test’method-of reliability, was , • • * i , employed because’ traits were being .studied. For this'reason. ‘ • ' o it seemed most pertinbn't to have som.e measure, of Stability, . * * * . Retestjng the fourth grade’sample was accomplished * . ’ ** * * . • •••«* , • • • • •’ • . . * . . _ • ** • *....* • *2 • * Lee jr. Cronbach*, Essentials of Psychological Testing •(New York:.* Harper and Brothers, 19^977 p. 69 * * * * . • • • • • • i « ■ a ■ • « ___ •. • ’ . * 51 • • * • | • • • t«l« • * • •twelve days after the first test,*while retesting the eighth . . . . grade sample was dOne ten days after the :first test* Sucrh ■intervals ass.ured a’plos& measure of stability (before •*.*** * ’ traits, might change) and. yet'gave £ spr.ead sufficient to **• * •• * * • • • n * t * »«*•* * minimize practice effept. •’ ' • • . • • • • Using- the Pearson‘pro’ duct-moment correlation -tech*-, * ■ '. • ‘ • 4 •' • . 1 ftique-as.' suggested by Anastadi^ and described.'by McNe'mar-3. • • ***** ** ••**• the*'results Indicated in Table V were .obtained: ’• **»*’ * * * * * * * ' • TABLE-V ; : \ * • - . -RESULTS OF TEST-RETEJST RELIABILITY • 'OF -EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE.. • * • • * ' BY USE OF'PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT •' ■ • • -.CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (r) . * ! . Grade N • Period of’ . -Test-Retest . • (r) •’• df ’ P ; . ’ 4 • ‘8 ’ 55 ' 53. . -12 days' 10 days’ - .66 .50- 3° ‘ j —! 1 —1 o’ 0 ; v V : -Findings .'reported "in Table V indicated tha-t reiiab’ ili; ty of the 'technique was 'sufficient at. both grade‘level's t o . ' - • make meaningful any generalization's about the results of . . group- comparisons' using the i-nstrument-'.a-t these grade levels 3Ibid-. ■ 4 ' ' • < / ' Anne -An'astasi, Psycho-logical- Testing (New York: The M.acmlllan-Company, 1954),-pp. 101—106.. . ' . 5 . . ... • • Quinn McrNemar, Psychological Statistics (New York;: John Wiley a,nd.*Sons, -Inc. ,-.19557* PP • H 5 -121j .see also Ap pendix C,' p. 107. ‘ ’ . • ' . IV* • PROCEDURE * • . • • • • * * . • * : 1 In' general, procedures o'f the major .study were siml- • ' 6 * • * lar to thode of the pilot.- . There were. a. sufficient number • * ■ • of .variation, however, to make.•presentation iri'sequential ' * « • •• order rtecessary.' . . • • . . . . ’ . " . One-of the’major modifications of pilot procedures,-, •followed.-in the ma'jor-study, was-a chdhg# in -the manner, of '* administering the technique'. With .refinement in administer ing the adjective check'list booklet' to1 group's-to. establish reliability., it ‘ became -possible to assemble the .experimental, * , ' • * ' * ’ • . * ' and control, subjects• together. • ' Possible.'variation in tes.t-’ ing' conditions could -be 'eliminated by-grouping -subjects. Therefore, this'-procedure was followed whenev-ef ’feasible. ’ . . Subjects were not'informed■ about the actual■ objecT- tlves of'the’study but. were t'old that .the study, was tq.,dis-- • .cover those words which fourth-and eigh.th grade boys used in- describing themselves. •'Rapport"'was generally’established ’ abound this • explanation. : \ A- booklet and a sharpened pencil were provided ’ for ' each subject.- Time was allowed for all subjects tbwrite, tn •identifying- information ’ on the coVer -sheet' • • When;- subjects were ready, 'instructions 'were-read aloud to the fourth grad ers’ . - Eighth graders were-Instructed to' read directions. si 7 . lently. . This prbcedure wa's- followed -.by rereading''.those. ‘ . sections which* might clarify a questipn. .(This clarlfica- * . ’ * • * • tlon *cJf any subject's question, was * the pnly direct answer • • ‘ ' . * • ' * . • •• * * • • allowed.) Subjeets were then instructed to fill ou, t*the * , i ♦ • • . * . • * •. • • , booklet. . • * .' ’ . . * . ' • • ‘ • • . ♦ * • • * * ' • : ’ . .When the-'task was completed, subjects were-asked to • » * • • • . • ‘ ' remain quietly seated’ until .the - ‘ others had finished. If. one • ■ • . * • ' became hyperactive or' talkative, (to-the point .that.he might disturb another subject) ’ he' was -excused’ . * All were -excused / immediately, following’ completion ’ o.f the task.- * * • * * ' • ! * * . ' ' • Following these test procedure's’ data-were then.ar ranged for analysis. V . • ‘ •/ CHAPTER V . . • • • • • * " * • • • * ' .. ' ; . . • • • • . . * • • * # * . • ‘ • * * . PRESENTATION OP THE DATA’ ' * This'chapter presents the ’data compiled .from analysis • * * • • • ' ‘ •of the Choices which subjects in the .main study tnjade. oa‘ an adjective checlf -list. The Sequence o-f presentation follows .the ' order.i'n whlc.h' the’ * specific questions- of the -problem • . were £sked.‘ Null hypotheses' are stated below in the lan-' * * • ' * • * • * * guage of .the. questions'..' An analysis of the data-pertinent ‘ to., each hypothesis; fallows its' statement. . Be'causO group differences were considered .in* the- pre'sent study) it'.was -felt that-establishing the. fiducial. • * * • ' • •'«.* ‘ ' limits of significance at .the • .05’ levej, of confidence.-would' give sufficient precision..- .In other words* rejection--0f .a. . hypothesis of no-difference'would'require'the. score of-a test of significance to be- large enou'gh either to .meet or to exceed’ -the requirement of'a .table of t. or F at. the '.05' : level . - 1 . . - . . . ' . : ' • • '•'... • . Hypotheses - were tested by-approaching the data from''. .three, types of 'analyses : ' • (l) by .c.onsl during the over-ali . 'relationship betwe.en Sets. o'f. index-scores., (2)' by. comparing specific it.ems within particular, groups,. and'(3) by- • * '• . Allen L. Edwards, Statistical . - Methods - for the' Behav ioral Sciences (New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., .1954); see-Appendix C,f.or'the principal, formulas-used irfthis ex-’ pefiment. . comparing ‘ sp'ecific items between particular groups.* . • * » • • * * * * • • * • * * # •• * • . * in -addition ‘ to. the tests ‘of* null Hypotheses*/ this '*••’• * * ’ * ** * . , chapter also presents an-analysts of.* certaih .data, for which- * « ♦ there was-no initial-hy'pothesisbut which were suggested'by • trends "in-results, • • . • ' . * . * * * . . . ’ ’ * . ' * - * . . •? '..T*. . TESTS OF* rtY.P0THESE3-(NUI*L FORM)-* .. \ ” Hypothesis T : There . is no" difference between thb self--’ acceptance measured by. an ad.1 ecfive - check list pf boys • # * > i • , »• who stutter and - boys who do . not. ' • .’•'•• . . * Operationally defined; .self-acceptance was considered to be an- index'-derived by dividing the number of favorable adjectives selected- by a subject by the total .number-of ad- • ’ jectlves .he -'chose. 'Such -treatment, of a .subject1 s• responses' . = provided a score w'hl.ch -was .algebraic and which maintained a 'constant ratio to one. ' The -decimal index'which.’ ’ resulted • from this computation allowed'for Equivalent consideration * * *• • * • «**'*• •pf .the ratio of favorable to'unfavorable adjectives’ regard less *of the total number of’ adjectives selected by any par ticular subject. • Theoretically, 'such computations provided, an''appropriate'pl’ cture-of an individual'1 s aelf-cpricept'-'re-:. gardless-of his freedqm of Expression: ’ * . ; . Each grade lev.el was considered, separately. . Thus.,.- t the' t test of the. difference in the means Qf.-paired'samples-. sEEmed appropriate, to test the nuli hypothesis -stated above.? 2Ibl'd*.. pp. 279^281 o 0 I • • * • * •**, . • • • • • * PD • * * * ’ * .* •. • • • • • . The'analyses presented in Tables VI and VII . d’ emon- /. ..... . . ■ • w m I » sti’ ate that, for/both the fourth’grade and the .eighth, grade * Samples., -thp* hypothesis, of no difference was tenable... Therd • . * * * , • • * * •• * **• *•** were no significant’.differences between ei’ ther--the fourth’’“ • . • •/ • * • • •• . .grade or the-.’eighth grade stutterers .and nbn-stutterers re- • gardirig self-acceptance measured by the adjective check list’ . ‘ TABLE.VI ’ ’ • /•" ‘ ' * • ■ t’TEST. OF DIFFERENCES- OF' SELF-ACCEPTANCE SCORES,' ’ . BETWEEN- FOURTH GRADE STUTTERING' BOYS AND • - ' • FOURTH GRADE NON-STUTTERING -BOYS;.' 1 Group- • N, Mean- (C:EJ ,u^1-ax? df . t . -P=. 05 'Dif f . * . ' .C ' ; E' ' l'5 ■ 88.19 ’ ’ ' : ‘ ' • -4.5 5.0 ■ - 14 ' 15-. 83.19*- ' • . . • ' -9. * % '2 . . ' . 1 4 5 <05- *# 1 . ' * , , < ..-Explanatory note: : • . ■ ' ■ • «x( ’-=x) .Xl 3? 1 ..p=.05 is the mean difference. ' ' . is the standard-erro.r of ‘ the '•are-the degrees of freedont. is . the.-level of signl-fl'cance to-'be -signlfi'cant.. . . ' ■ . • • mean difference t must'meet or exceed • • ' : .-TABLE VII ’’t TEST'.OF DIFFERENCES. OF'SELF'-ACCEPTANCE SCORES: . , . ■ • BETWEEN. EIGHTH GRADE STUTTERING BOYS .AND ’ ■ ■’ * " ' ' . ' EIGHTH-GRADE-NON-STUTTERING BOYS; • * . “' . . . Group - N* Mean (C.-D) -^xp df - . t P=.Q5' -Dlff.- C 15 ‘ '84,53 ' ' • ' ' .-4.'.'- 3.*97 ’3A' .-1..01 £.145 <.-05 '•E 15 ' 88.53' ' . . Hypothesis II:* There is no self-description which is . j . . ----------. ---— - — • * Unique either to a particular group of boys who stutter br * ‘ ■ . • . * to ‘ a particular-. group of boys who do not 'stutter . ' . - . *.■•*•. • ‘..•An analysis of the adjectives selected*’In common by * * • • * ' * . •* * ' . * * * . . s the subjects of any particular group came from within-grQup' : • • . • ‘ • . comparj.aonb.. Such a selection*, was based on a criterion .of * * . . * - • * significant agreement. • • . * , , • • * • * • • * * • • • * • • ‘ In- keeping with the.stated level of .05, which Was* . . acoepted for’the testing *o*f'the* null hypotheses of this study, a"statistical- technique [was chb-sen which;allowed for -preoislon-'in'comparison'pf- these .unique self 7.descriptions. ' ■ .The method for. determining the 'fiducial limits -for .the’ mean, . ■ * . * ‘ * O * * ' * ' * * de'scrlbed by-Edwards-, wa's; utilized. . . By-applying this meth^- • od to t ' h ' e ddta of • the "present .study,'-.it was'.found-.that a’ .-- .'group would'have, to-select an adjective fifteen but pf 'f'lf- ' teen times for.it to be significant at .the .'05' level-. Table ■VIIl illustrates the-grader levels' and. groups with the. self- .descriptions' which were -unique to -ea.ch particular^ group. 'Table VUI'-also shows that-fourth grade non-stutter-, era .had the 'greatest' number-of self-descriptions -In. common,' .and that’ trie eighth grade stutterers.were least in agreerjient All self-descriptions selected were, those which had.been, .rated "favorable" by .the judges.' ‘ • • ' . ' . ' • Self -descriptions found to'bd in-common .between- . . groups were: ."useful," fourth grade stutterefs and eighth * grade non-stutterers; "good," fourth grade stut’ terers and • • • • fourth grade non-stutterers; and "thankful," fourth grade. • • • . non-stutterers and eighth grade non-stutterers. . • • * • • . TABLE VIII . * ‘ selp-desCr i p h o n s unique to particular ’GROUPS OP FOURTH AND EIGHTH GRADE * • • . BOY STUTTERERS AND NQN-STUTTERERS • * * i * * . 4th Stut. 1-4th N-Stut. • 8th Stut. . 8th N-Stut. . • ~ ' — ' • • • — " . — •" . * . 'useful . . kind / . happy • ’ 'useful good- • • good . . . . thankful helpful • • fair ' . alive, friendly .'thankful . • • * ‘•cheerful ' . . 'These .data Indicate that the hypothesis bf' no dfffer- ence was’ untenable and 'that .there 'was agreement upon unique • self-descriptions- by particular grpups. . ’ . Hypothesis' III.: There Is .no difference ' between -the .sfelf-attributes which are chosen' by . boys- who stutter and • boys' who do’ not when . ' compared at the same grade level' . .. A cdntrlbutlon-'whlch coilld’ come conceivably from the “present study might-be. a list of self-attributes which dlfr ferentiates significantly•between boys, who stutter-And boys whq-'do. nbt.' A. self-attribute was. defined aS-"-a quality of self Indicated .by any particular adj-actiVe chosen-by a ; . ® • - • • ‘ * 59 *4 ‘ * subject." „ • • A list of self-attributes differs frpm a list of . « unique self-descriptions ’ because self-attribute comparisons come from‘ between groups rather than within groups. Compar- * . isons are made without regard to the frequency of choice.* • • within a particular group. * * * • The significance of any particular self-a'ttribute 1 * • a ■ * • term was determined by comparing the mean.difference af its • • • selection by any two groups. The statistical treatment was a t test for the significance of the difference between • < . * means’ of two independent samples,? and the results are shown in Table IX. By following,this method, only one word‘ was ' ' found,to be significantly different. This-word-was "just" * * and it was selected significantly more' by.-the non-stuttering, * * * * * fourth grade group'*than the stuttering, 'fourth grade, group.* : TABLE IX;. . ' • ' * • ' • .t TEST-FOR THE'SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN TPfE \ •CHOICE OF THE SELF-ATTRIBUTE-‘"■JUST" .BY’FOURTH . GRADE -BOY STUTTERERS AND FOURTH GRADE* • • \ ■ . . BOY'-'NON-STUTTERERS . • • • . . . Group ■ ■ N. Mean (NS-S) ^*- sx2 df ' t ' P= .'0$ , Diff. * ; . * NS 15** .60• * * • • • • * * , " • '.47 ' .13- ' ■ 14 \3*6l ' 2.145 ' >.05' • S . 15 ' -13 . • . • . • • ,^Cf. Chap.’ I. . ‘ • ^Edwards., op . * • ' cit. . * $p.t 252-255* ' • , Hypothesis IV:_ There Is no difference between the- . * degree of'self-acceptance-of stuttering boys of two differ- • • • ent'grade levels and•non-stuttering boys of two different « * • • grade levels.• • . 'As evidenced by Table X, apparently thdre was a. slg- • * i • , « * * # # nifleant difference between the variances of the fourth, and . .*•**. • * ' . • eighth grade stutterers.. To test tbe significance'of dlf7 ference. between means of two populations/ a’t test was re- 6 quired. This .test was necessary to find .out .if the differ-- ' • • « , . . * \ * ence between the means* of the two populations was’ -al'so .sig nificant. (See Table XI). • • • * • * * * * * * * / 1 • . TABLE X' HOMOGENEITY OP VARIANCE • . BETWEEN SELF-ACCEPTANCE SCORES . • . OP- FOURTH AND EIGHTH GRADE BOY. STUTTERERS Grade Variance. - F df(Ni<-l -by N2-I) P=;.05 - Diff. . -4 * ' ■ ‘259 . ’ 87 \ • . -14 • • * , 3.728 . • 2.48 >,05. . .8 • 69.69 * • ... 14 • • . * • • ’ - • '* ' ‘ TABLE XI- % . * . * .t 'TEST OP .THE DIFFERENCE -BETWEEN THE •***- ; * ’ • • SELF-ACCEPTANCE SCORES’ OF FOURTH ‘ • AND EIGHTH GRADE feOY STUTTERERS * • • Grade N Mean ■ (-8-4) -^x-^xp df ’ . - t . p=. 05 * Dlff. • ’ • V '19- .83.73 • * V * * • * ‘.<;05 . ; 4.80 . * 4463 ;4 *i.o4.’ 2.145 ' . .-a 15 .88.73. , t * • • • • t * ^IbldV. p. . 273. . • • • • • • • * 4 Despite the* significant difference in the.population * varianc-e, the means did not differ significantly. Therefore, the hypothesis of no difference between fourth ana’ eighth •/ * 4 * # * • grade stutterers regarding* their self-'acceptance scores • • • • i • * could be* considered tenable.*- - * * . * . • * . * * * * • * * • * • • • • * * * ' . . ' The test of.homogeneity pf variance, shown in .Table 'XII, resulted* in lack- of significance' being demonstrated be tween the population, variance of -fourth* and eighth grade, non-stutterers- Thus, *a t-test of the mean differences of. paired samples was made. This- t test is illustrated.in ; Tabid XIII. ’.*.*.; * :! . . ‘ •*'*•* * •.'*_-. ' * ; . • • * ' TABLE‘XII . ; • • • . . . * * ' ' • . ■ ' HOMOGENEITY* OF VARIANCE TEST - O f . * SELF-ACCEPTANCE. ' ’ * . ' .* . * . - * ' SCORES BETWEEN FOURTH AND EIGHTH GRADE • ' ' • . . . * . . * “ - NONtSTUTTERING BOYS . * • Grade * . Variance*'* . . ' F* df(Ni* ty Np) - • * p =.:'Q5 Diff : • A . 105.62 * " 8 ‘ ‘177.83 ' • * « • • N - , ‘,/14 1.68 * * . • • * ' ' . N2, .14* ' ' ’ • * . 2.48 ;'<.65 * - • TABLE XIII. * • • , * ♦ • ' f TEST *0F THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SELF*-ACCEPTANCE ' • * . SCORES OF FOURTH AND EIGHTH GRADE' .- . * ' ' ■ * * . * *' NON-STUTTERING BOYS. - Grade N Meari (8^4) df*-. .t * P^.05 Diff.. •‘ .4 * -15, 88.19 * ' - 3 15 ‘ 84.53 * • " * 3.’ 66; '-4.88 ^ ' 14 • * . • . ' , ( - - » - — * *2'.145 • * • * * • •'<.05 The hypothesis of no difference between fourth and * • • * * ( • • • * . *• eighth grade non-stutterers irf relationship to self-accept- • * . * * ance scores was not; refuted by the results of. tbe.t test. ' \ . • ‘ The between grade level ootnparisonb suggested-that * ' i *-•* * * • j M * .there w# as no real difference .between’the degree of * self-ac.-. - ceptdnce of either the. fourth and .eighth grade stutterers‘or. •the fourth and•eighth grade nOh-stutterers. • Hypoth'esls V: There is no -difference between self-- • attributes which, are chosen by. stuttering boys of two dl-f- § • « • • « ferent grade-, ' levels • and non'-stutterlng boys of the same two different grade, levers' . 1 . . ' ' . • A ' ori.terioh" of-significant difference'between the 36-: i * * , ‘ • . t t * • lection.of• • any sel'f-attribute by. twb groups-was• established at a difference1 of seven .-choices. ' The t test for-the sig-. - . 'nlficance-of the difference'in the* choice of "-jus't" by .fourth, .grade stutterers and fourth, grade-non-stutterers (Ulus- • trated lri-Table IX, p'. £9), demonstrated that.-this, .spread of- choices between two groups.-was. necessary^ to-achieve-.a sig nificant differerice.- The t .tests of spreads of six. choices or. le-ss did not'yield significance.' This 'finding was'fur ther cpnflrmed- by t tests a't this point 'of'the-analysis. . » , * . • * * * . ’ . Applying the "criterion of ' significant diff.eren.ee b'e-’ •tween the-selection of Any ae.lf-attribute" by two • gro'ups-to • ' ’between'grade, level comparison^, two 'self-^attributes were * , * * • • * ' , ’ * * •• •• . * • fQUnd to:be. significantly' different between two '-groups. • • * • * * ThdGe ‘ two self-attributes were "wonderful" and "just."' Table XIV demonstrates' the-t-tests confirming that ‘ the cri- ’ teriQn of significant .difference was'established at a spread of• seven, words-.* - ” • ' ; \ ‘ ' TABLE XI-V . _ . - • . t* TESTS CONFIRMING CRITERION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES ! ‘ WITH’THE' WORDS- "WONDERFUL". AND "JUST-'.' BETWEEN • ' ’FOURTH AND EIGHTH*GRADE STUTTERING’BOYS . •' .Word Group 'N Mean- (4-8) ^Xl_sX2 -•df- • t * p=.05' Diff-’ . won-- . 4 ^5 ’ .8o’ -' , # , , § • , « • der- . • . .47 • -19; 14 2.42 - . 2.’ l 45*.- >.05 • ’ ful 8' 15 . .33 - . - ’• 4 15 . -13- • * ♦ '. • * t just. . 8- ’ . ‘ -6? '•54 ' -13- 14 4.15 ■ 2:1'45 >•’ 05 / . ‘15' . • • ■ . • . The--self -attribute, "wonderful’ )" Was chosen signifi cantly more frequently by fourth grade stutterers,.as com- ' , i , , 4 , • 1 » « » • pared., with. eighth grade-stutterers. • The se^f-attribute, . • ">just;'' was selected, significantly more often by the eighth • grade- ’stutterers • as compared with the- fourth grade stutter- . ers. -This- . difference'held for .grade level comparisons only. * , ,** *•/ '♦ 'Summary of • the tests of hull hypotheses. From the. • • ’ statistical -analysis of-the-datd. of the study, 'the 'following conclusions wei’6 obtained, by testing hypotheses of no dif ference:- • . • * * * * • * * • * • * * * • * 1. Ther'e is no -significant, difference _ befcwepn the- • * • • * « » . ’ •***• * • • • * * * • • * . . * , * * * , * » / self-acceptance, of boys who s.tutter and bdys who do'not when * • • meaaure^’ by ah adjective check list. . . . . 2 ' . The following .uni’ qiie Belf-descriptions were se lected slgnificahtly by .the fourth * grade stutterers r. "use ful''/' '"good" and "helpful." * ‘ : • V 3. The following unique 'self rdesOr.lptlons were se- lected • signjLflcan.tly by'the fourth .grade'non-stutterers,:'' "kind," "gqod/'. "fai’ r/r'"friendly/1 "’•thankful" and. ."cheer-' ful'.’ " • ' 4. .The following unique self-desc'riptiqn was de lected significantly by the. eighth grade stutterers’: ’ ' "happy." • ’ ‘ V • : 5. ;The following unique . ‘self-de’ scrlptions were, se lected significantly by the eighth, grade .non-stutterers: "useful/' "thapkful'’-arid "alive."., . • 6.-‘ - Fourth-' grade' non-stutterers b,ad the greatest num ber 'of unique self-descriptions which were- selected signifi cantly'by a particular .group. ' • ’ ' ' • ; • 7»‘ 'Eighth grade, stutterers had' the l.ea'st number of ' unique self-descriptions whic.h were1 selected by a particular group. • ' • .' ' • . ..' . ' ' , • * '' • '8; ..The self-description’ "good" Was unique, to both • . • • . * .* , * I t / ' *«* * * * * t » ♦ •• fourth'-grade stutterers'.and’ fpurth .grad.e• non-stutterers. - . •9. ....The pelf-'descrlptioh "useful", wad. Unique ’ to-both fourth grade'stutt.erers/and qighth‘grade.*non-stutterers 1 .♦ * * * • • • . 10.. .The self-descrlptioh ".thankful" was unique to . *. ’ ■ both fourth grade, non-stutterers an.d- eighth’grade non-s.tut*-* • . .* • * . • . ‘ •’ • 65 • * * , , * * * * * • » • * • » «* •.‘11-. "Joist" ’ was .chosen significantly more for a self- attrlbute by-fourth'grade nop-stutterers* than by fourth * * ' .•••>* « ' * . . * * grade stutterers . • . . ' 12i • The population variance- differed significantly ; between fourth‘and eighth grade stutterers in regard to. • * • ' * * self-acceptance.scores. ' ‘ #it . ‘ • ■ 1-3There was .no significant difference between the. self-acceptance-.of stuttering -boys of .two grade level-s and -non-stuttering’boys of the. same-two'grade -levels'. • 1 ' 4 . - "Wonderful" was chosen significantly 'mor? for a- » • « * * ■ • self^attribute by .-fourth grad? stutterers than by'eighth'.. * • • ' , " s • * * \ « • * grade stutterers. :- '. . • • • . . . • .15- ""Jupt" was chosen significantly more for a,self attribute. by eighth grade stutterers, -than, by fourth grade; stutterers; V - • • \ ! . II. . - ADDITIONAL-.TESTS-OF DIFFERENCES • , .. . . WITHOUT. HYPOTHESES . . . ; • •'. . • ' After'the data had been gathered according to "the ' . . ' original design-of‘ the experiment,- and’its' analysis* had. been initiated, apothe’ r series of tests of . ’ .differences Suggested itself! Important information se’ emed available.by comparing. th'e-'self-acceptarl'ce scores’of various groups ac-cordlng to .’ • ••**. * * * ' , • * • • • father's occupational classification’ . . . ’ * ' * ; s ■ • • • . * ’ •Support .for Initiating this*procedure of -tests with- • • out hypotheses catie. frpm Edwards. He suggested that if it • • • • • • * . • •. * 66 ••■•••• . * 1. appeals desirablfe .to teat a hypotheses that twQ variances . • * **•* • * ,are equal, "this iriay.be done‘ without'involving any* hypothe sis. whatsoever about, the populat'i-'on’ means. "J • . •' • 1 . For these .additional .testa,, self-acceptance scores of stutterers from the fourth grade Were pooled .With self-ac ceptance .scores, of s'tuttefers from'the eighth grade.- The' same pooling of scores was’ carried -out with - ’ the fourth arid- eighth, grade non-stutterers.. ' * ’ . . The test-of the homog'eneity .of. variance for. stutter1 ers wh'ose fathers’ 1 "occupations were in Classes I and-III .a’ p-. pears in Table XV. 'Glass' I fathers are professionals, while Class III'fathers-.are in skilled trades, retail' sales', etc, Thi-.s test resulted iri a-significant'difference between the population variances of- the two .classes of; stutterers. . ' . • TABLE XY. - ' ' : . ' HOMOGENEITY DF VARIANCE ' ’ ' - * 1 ' • ' OP BOY- STUTTERERS' SELFrACCEPTANCE SCORES ■ ' • ' . WHOSE FATHERS ARE EITHER TN- CLASS I. OR.'CLASS III: '• . .Class : Variance F . df • P= .05' . 'Diff. i . l6'.34 • ' N]i-1, 2 • • '• • . 11..23 ' 3.55-' >.05 ' III. • 183.54 . • ■ -E_ # N2-l,l8' . .* A>*comparison.'-Was,made .between, the t'test obtained for' * '' ' . • ' * .tfie difference in th.e-means of two independent samples of. • . different sizes, and the level of significance established . \ • 7 Ibid., p. 272. • ‘ 8 ■by tlte t.approximation at .05: By this .method (illustrated in- Table XVI), a.significant'difference-was obtained 'between * ♦ t ' * * * •stutterers whose fathers, had occupations in. Class* I. and. . thope.-Whose-fathers had .o'ocupations. in Class III. • . ' •. ' TABLE XVI * ' £ TEST -OF.BOY •STUTTERERS' • SELF-ACCEPTANCE SCORES. WHOSE FATHERS- ARE EITHER . ■ . • IN 'CLASS I Oft CLASS III - GlJasS ' • *N Mean -.(.I-III) axi-Bx2'df , ' * 6 * t.05 Dlff. I' 3- 97.67 ' ' * , • • * , • • , .14.41-' .3.89 . 14 •3.7P' ' 2.898 •>.0'5. . III • • • •19- 83.26 . * • * . • • *. . ‘ Tests fo.r homogeneity'of variance, shown in Table' XVIIindibated the two population variances were signifi-^ cantly. different. . ' * . • • • ’ . . ' • ' • ' ' ‘ - TABLE XVII • • • - . ' ' HOMOGENEITY* OF VARIANCE • • * OF NON-STUTTERING BOYS1 ' SELF-ACCEPTANCE*SCORES . WHOSE FATHERS, ARE EITHER IN CLASS'I OR .CLASS III Cl-a-ss .Variance, ' F • df * . Pf= . 05 Dlff. I' !’ 9'. 34 * .Ni-l, 2 * • • ' III . 167.5.6 17.94. n2-i,i8 ' 3.55 >•05 ’. * ' A second comparison, shown in Table XVIII, was'made * • * • * * * • between the t test obta'ined for the difference in the means • * ' • 1 • 8Ibld. . p.*'274. • .. . • ■ of-two independent: samples of different sizes with the level • ’ • . • ■ ’ 'of significance established by t*he’t, approximation at..05. By. Jbhis'.method, a significant difference was found between the -self-acceptance .scores of non-stutterers-, whose- fathers had occupations in Class I, and those‘ whose, fathers had oc.- • • * • * • cupatlons'in Class III'. _ • ’ ' . ' ‘ ' TABLE XVIII ’ t TEST OP NON-STUTTERING BOYSJ SELF-ACCEPTANCE SCORES WHOSE FATHERS ARE -EITHER . ■ . IN CLASS -I OR CLASS III • • • •Class N . Medn (I-III) sxi-sX2 df t • t.05 Diff : ' . I # • Ill --1 — . ’ • 3 19 96:67 . • 11-99 84.68 .■ 3:-45 ! 14 3.48 2.67 • ----. . . ...- I * . - --— >.05 • Further comparisons were carried out upon the four . other possible combinations of classes:* Cl’ ass I. and Class II-Stutterers,' Cl&ss I and Class II Non-Stutterers, Class II and Class III Stutterers, and.Class II and Class III Non- Stutterers. However,-no significant differences between any .of these groups were discovered. Table XIX lllustrat.es th.e lack of significant differ ences in population variances, between stutterers whose fath ers ’ occupations were in Class I and II and in Class II and ■ III. • . • * Table XX shows that no significant differences could . ' . • . 1 • be found in population variances between non-stutterers * * 6 9 • • * whode fathers' occupations, were in Class I and II and in • 4 • • » * Class II and III. • . • TABLE XIX • . • ■ • • • COMPARISONS OP VARIANCES OP BOY STUTTERERS'. SELF.-ACCEPTANCE'SCORES. WHOSE FATHERS' .OCCUPATIONS. ARE EITHER IN CLASSES I, II .OR III ’ _ Class Variance ' F • df • P=.05 Dlff. • * • I 16.34 • Ni-1- , 2 * 7.*12 . . 10.92 <.05 . II 116.57 • n2-i/6 1.57 • '4.25 <-05 III 183.54 • • -N3-l,lB • . TABLE -XX COMPARISONS OF VARIANCES OF NON-STUTTERERS' SELF-ACCEPTANCE SCORES WHOSE FATHERS' OCCUPATIONS ARE EITHER IN ■ CLASSES- I, II OR III • Class Variance F df ■ 0 01 Dlff. I 9.34 ES 1 ro ' . • <.05 10.87 10.-92 II 101.61 1.64 N2-1, 6 4.25 <.05 II-I 167.56 N3“l,l8 • The findings of the additional tests without hypothe ses indicated that the following differences were signifi cant: • * a « * * * * 1. There is a significant difference, between self- • * • * * acceptance scores of stutterers whose fathers have occupa- . tlons in Class I and stuttefers whose fathers have • • • • • 70 • • * ’ * *• * * * occupations in .Class III. . * • t * 2. There is a significant difference b’ etween self- * ‘ acceptance scores-of non-stutterers‘ whose fathers have* occu- pations'in Clas^ I and non-stutterers whose‘fathers have oc- * • • • • , * * * •cupations in ClaBS III. * • 3* .T’ hehe is rio significant difference between self-* acceptance .scores In any of the following group comparisons • . ' \ ' ■ on ‘ the basis of. fathers' occupational c las si-fi cation: Class I and Class II stutterers, Class I and Class II non-stutter- * ' er3, .Class II and Class III stutterers/ and Class’ II and Class III ‘ non-stutterers. .••*.• ‘ •CHAPTER V,l • « • * * INTERPRETATION OF.THE*DATA ■ *• . . . . •• » • • • * This chapter interprets the findings of the present • • * ‘ study. TheSe findings are then ‘ related to. previous studies • • * « • * • , * ‘ ... ' ' , . and statements which deal with comparisons of the salfrcon- cepts of stutterers frith* those of non-stutterers. * ‘ • * • *....* ‘ • • ‘ I. DISCUSSION’*pp THE -finding's \ 1 ’ . • * ' ‘ . * . OF THE PRESENT STUDY • * \ • ‘ *’ • • Two ma-j.or concerns seemed, evident from Reviewing, studied and statements dealing with various* aspects of the* ’ • 1 •relationship of stu-ttering theory and therapy to personality> theory^ First, were stutterers as a group less well ad'- justed*than non-stutterers? Second, was there a "stuttering personality" as such?’ * _ . • • ’ • . • t The three major' hypotheses -were stated wi.thout -any. extensive_requirements bping placed upon the subjects se-" lected to represent the group-of troys who did hot stutter. Other than meeting certain basic matching criteria, estab lished to minimize the possibility of measuring something' * other than self-concepts,’ the nonvstuttering subjeists were * • * • selected entirely by chance from available school rec.ords.‘ By using a self-concept measure .designed particularly • i for this study,.to* test thfese three hypotheses, information . * * • might be obtained which could clarify some of the principal issues' arising from attempts to relate stuttering* theory and • * • • • , • • • » • * • • •.therapy to personality theory. • . • *• . . . ■. , ■* * * • • •. . • . • .. . . . . . . Findings bearing’ . Upp'n* the hypothesis that bofrs who stutter would have less favorable self-concepts than boys . ' • ♦ . * .*•’ * , ' i 9 * * " * • who -do not stutter. ’ Se.lf-acceptance Is necessary for the ’ • • . . ' attainment and maintenance of sound mental health. McQuitty *•** • • • * • supported’ this assumption when he stated that ' ’maximum psy chological'adjustment exists when all of an individual's * . • \ # » # * * * * * subjective opinions of’himself are entirely acceptable“to . him.-"1 •' . ■' ‘ * * • ' * ****•' 1 -jf stuttering’i‘ 9 ah expres-sion of a maladjusted per- ‘ sonality,. and, if self-acceptance is necessary for optimum ’ . adjustment, then the' stubte^e-r would’-be. significantly less s.elf-accepting than the non-stutterer.. The results-of the ’present study do not support’ such .reasoning. .No significant•differences were ’ found between self acceptance scores, of stuttering, arid non-stuttering boys 'when' comparisons-were’ .made between'group's on either ’ the-fourth or eighth grade level. --This finding indicated that if stutter ers actually; see themselves less favorably than non-stutter ers, the present study dould not discover this_difference. On the contrary, 'the preponderance of evidence from the • • * * present *study Indicated that there via's no significant . • • • - • • l * " • ■ ' Louis McQuitty,. "*A Measure of Personality Integra tion in Relation to the Concept of Self," Journal* of Person ality. 18:461-482, June, 195°• * • • • 'difference.' . . • . • • * * » • • • . • Findings bearing.upon the hypothesis . .that . study/of * • * * . * • • ' . * • • self-cdn-cep.ts would result in self-descriptions which would 4 • • * * * * . • * • , * « • differentiate stutterers as. a group . from non-stutterer s' . . *. •, •' • . • . * . Item Analyses of-responses to the' adjective* check list' pjro- / ; . ' , • * ' • vided data for -testing the hypotheses of the * existence of. ' * ' * • * • * either, unique group self-descriptions or self-attributes,. * . # ' , * * * * By these analyses* several adjectives which'had'-statistlcal • •significance were 'isolated as either being self-descriptive of various -groups'or differentiating betweeh g-roups.' To be * * 1 * • . s , ‘ statistically significant, unique self-description'had to bet chosen -by all fifteen subjects in a particular grpup, while to differentiate between groups, a- self-attribute had'to-, ha've a difference-of ’ seven .choices-by- one group or-another.' • The self-descriptions obtained‘in this manner..were hot’'too •helpful for' psychological-'significance. * . . ‘ . After eliminating the two words, "good", and "useful," ‘which, were also .common to another group, only., the word, "help ful" -remained as uniquely self-descriptive of -the fourth grade stutterers. Little psychological significance-'could ' . be. seen in' this-word by itself. The fourth grade non.-stutterers were more cohe-sive'ln their choices from the check list-.. Thei-r group self-descrip-, tlon oontairted the‘ greatest number'of adjectives-selected .by ’ ■ * • * • • * • « * t ■ any of the four groups. Again, eliminating .th'e word gopd . . • because it was also, common to another group, the fourth ‘ grade hon-stutterers ’ described themselves with ‘ the follcjwing attributes*:, "klnd-V J'falr," "friendly," "thankful"• and . . . . . • * . . . . "c-heerful*.." ; Thi^* s.elf-description was tHe most, outgoing one * * * ' , • * • * * * • selected by_any of. the-groups'. . . . • * » * . * • • * -. • * * • • The only adjectiv.e-upon which the' eighth grade stut- * • * * * • . * • * ^ • • ' * . tferers could agree was "happyr." Had significant differences been found in the self-acceptance score comparison’ s, .'consid- erable psych‘ oiogl’ ca-1 significance- might be.‘ assigned to the ' . word. "happy" .by-itself* -A hypothesis' could .have been made • .that this * group •■was making's, concerted, plea tb possess an * • - i ‘ t » * * * 1 « * • * * * • » , • * > * attribute which .was .really not sel-f -descriptive. • • ’ Wishful’ ‘ thinking could have been used; to explain suc-K a phenomenon.. .. '.How.ev.er,- considering .the findings,, this'hypothesis is ex tremely tenuous. • •. • * . ■ . Excluding .the words "useful" and.-".thankful,which * ' . were also’common to other groups, "alive" was'‘ the only word. '. chosen1 exclusively by the eighth grade non-stuttering’group: . . The- only possible^ significance’ .which ’might be dttaphed tenta- . . tively;to this self-description -could be that.-this. groyp . . . might be concerned-about its.-personal .well-being. By. choc’ s- • lng this word, self-assurance could be-’realize’ d. ' . . In the between-groups'comparisons, thfe self-attribute, "just" was ohosen- more’significantly, by fourth grade non- stut'terers than by fourth‘ grade stutterers-. .The. choice of 4 • # ^ * "ju£t" for the only self-attribute between groups, on ’ the ’ * • * , . * • * same grade-levpl is difficult* to explain. It is suspected, . 4 * • • however, that either chanoe Or misunderstanding rather than • • • , * psychological' significance led to the. selection of -this eval- uati've term.’ • . • • • . ’ • • « • • Findings- . hearing1 on the . hypo thesis that eighth grade . * * • * * * 1 ’stutterers Jaa’ ve less .favorable self-concepts than fourth .. r . . . : • V . grade - stutterers. St’ utterer&-Were assumed to be "less w.ell- 'adjusted* than noriLstutterera. 1.Thus, the stut.terer's se-l-f- •. • - . ... • concept, should--be. significantly1 less- f&vora'ble as.he grew older> since he. woiild 'become more1 , awara 'df unfavorable, social evaluation. .The data did-not support the.stated-assumption’. '. • .Although’ there-was" a reversal’in th- e-mean difference1 • * • • • * of self-acceptance scores -between .stutterers' and nonr^-tut- terers .on the two. grade levels', it'was not statistically .significant. The reversal indicated that the fourth grade • . • * * * * ♦•••« ^ stutterers1 , mean’ self -acceptance -score wa's-the smallest 'of any of the-groups. ."On the other" hand,’ , the eighth*-grade • ’ . .stutterers' mean self-acceptance -score-was the-largest'of • any 'of the groups'. While-the population variance was shown • * * ' * ' * » * * to be-significantly-different .between .these two.groups, th'is was not true of the'mean difference's. Though'not statisti-' •cally significant, the data, would indicate a. tendency for eighth .grade- stutterers to- have greater self-acceptance’ than ' - - • fourth grade stutterers.. This finding would be in direct • • * * .contradiction to the, stated hypothesis. Other "findings bearing directly and lndire’ ctly upon * • ' # • this hypothesis - come from evaluating difference's between* the self-attributes of'the two grade ..levels. ‘Only twp words, • • * * • • « * . * • * * ' '\Just" and "wonderful/1 , were ’ chosen.wi.th significant differ- • * # * * * * • * . •• * ence .in the between-grade, level comparison^. • The eighth grade stutterers those "just" m’ ore. si’ gnifi- •cantTy than *dld fourth grade stutterers’ . 'Because df the* • • •« . . ■ . * * * previous findings that fourth grade non-stutterers hajd also • . • • • •* • * * * « • * • * ohosen .the’ same attribute, as-signing differentiating ‘ valUe • * • * 9 , ' * * *•••* toJust"* w.oul’ d be beyond the data. ;. .... • ’ * • • . ’ • / The self-attribute wonderful". .Wap chosen slgnificant- • • • t « < » • t ly more by eighth,grade non’ -stutterers .than* by fourth grade * ’ * ’ • non-stutterers/ Such a”’ ch01ce, m-lgh’ t have beep Indicative of * • * • * a high degree of self-esteem.’ . _ • • * ; -'To generalize to any-great.'extent, about self-cLescr'ip- tions or self-attributes for various groups‘ on the’ba.sls "of i . * , * * * , . * t * , the data would’be inappropriate.- It .might be mpre-appropri- * * * . . * * • ‘ * * • . .ate’ to surmise that chance alone may .have been operating ’ in . * * , * • • » the selective -proces’ s, with the-.possible .exception of the fourth grade* non-stutterers who selected . ’ five adjectives for ’their group self-description..- ‘These ‘ five adjectives were ’ ■ all out-going.in-nature. * * . , Although it was.not predicted, the fac-t that unfavor able adjectives we’ re not selected in common by any particu- a * * • • lar group would be consistent with what’ Is known about self- . • • • II.- IJXSCUSSION. RELATING* FINDINGS . • • • • * . . • • 1 • . • • * . TO P.REVIOUS. STUDIES-AND STATEMENTS * • • • *.*.*' *.***’ * • • , . * * •• .OF-SELF-CONCEPT^ OF*STUTTERERS ‘ • . ••.* •. . - * • • * * * • * • ... • • • . • • • The findings* *o.f. the. pres*ent study are in*# ke'eping with. * • * i * • * P ^ those of -Fielder and. Wepman .in tha.t a hyp'othesis *.of dlffer- » • •••*• * • epee in* the self-concept of stu.tte’ rers and-' no’ n'-'stutterers * • * * • could not be-supported.. . * ’ t ..**•. • * * There was* also general agreement between the present * * • • . - a * • study .findings apd those’of Rahman. • Although..the present * • * #* * • • , * * • » « ## * * stp’ dy di'd riot .attempt to.measure ‘the,*idepl self-cbncept • * " * . * . . : /• along’w’ ith the. self7<?oncept‘ , as In.. Rahman'-s study, bo.th studies -indicated- that no1 ’signi’ fi'cant differences existed in this area between stU'tt'ere-r's and .non-stutterers . However/'. • , * * • * • • * ■ , * * • it should be* pointed -out that the- present study design.dif-* . •fered.from-both’of the above*Q-.sort studies:' Because neither ‘ of the previous studies had': used children, • direct * compari son's of findings' could be made only in a geriera'l way. * ’ • -There v*a£ bbth .confirmation''and’confl.ict with. .the. re- • *.-.*- . " . suits pf.Zelen, Sheehan and-Bugental. -Agreement; came 'front ■ - 2 ’ • ‘ • ' * * • . Fred.E.. Fielder'and Joseph M.. Wepman, "An Explorato ry Investigation of the Self-Concept of Stutterers,1 1 Journal' of Speech' - and Hearing ' Disorders. l6:*110-il4, ‘ June, 1951.'.. * * - A ' - ’ i i • **•"*. • rPsrsephone Rahman, The Self-Concept and Ideal Self- Concept of Stutterers as-Compared .tp Non-Stutterers" (unpub lished ’ Master-1 s thesis, Brooklyn* College, * . Brooklyn, 1956).*' * " Seymour L. Zelen, ’ Joseph*G. Sheehan* and James F. Bugental, Self-Perceptions In Stuttering,V Journal q£ Clin ical Psychology. .10:20-72, January, 195^* . consideration of self-descriptive dataj* in .that the ’ non- * ^ • • • • • • • • •stutterers .of .both ’ studies were able to indicate Tnore unique- t . • • . ■ . * .* 1 npss *of self. Disagreement afos$ when.tpe stutterers .of the • • * • . ■ ■ > • ; present study* .la’ cked. the greater positive affect noted* by* ’ • * * • ' • . * ' Zeleri, Sheehan and Bugental’However*, this apparent oon- • i • * • • • • « • • • • (• * * • • flict* m’ i’ ght. be* attributed*-to baslb ‘differences -between .ohil- * • ■ . ' * * * * • • *. dren-aind adults. * .''.■** • '• ** • . * . . * * * • • * * * Johnson*'s. semahtogenetic theory received no support • • • t * . . • • * ' * from’ the present study.-3 If children accept labels applied.* ’•*.•* - . * . ’ * . - . * ’ ’*.•■ ’• * • ’ *. by others, forming, t-he basis for continuing non-fluency into " • * • • • • . • • • • * stuttering, .as’Johnson,contends,' thfen the stuttering boy. should*, generalise, and accept more unfavorable self^evalua- 't'lons. than the boy who does hot .becqmd a stutterer. ’ The ' • present study found/ to'the contrary, that stuttering bcrys '• did not have significantly' lesd self-acceptance .than .non- stuttering boys. Thus,’ Johnsori's theoretical‘stand'might'be ■.weakened-if further studies Qf.thq sel.f.-evaluative .process provided similar results.to the present study and those-by .Fielder and Wepman and Rahman.* ’ However/ the present study, alone could not be-considered sufficiently-broad to/.be’ah ‘ 'adequate evaluation of Johnson1 s entire theory. . • The present study.had ho direct provision- for measup-* •* * • • • ing as a function of therapy the stutterer’ 1 s feellhgs about * . • ’* ‘ • * * * . . " * ’ • * * • ’ . • . - • • . • ^ • * • • 5 * Wendell Johnson, in Eugene F. Hahn (ed.), Stuttering: ‘Significant ^Theories and Therapies (’ 2d e.d. prepared by Elise S.* Hahn.; Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1956), pp. 59-70. his .disorder. Thus*,, infere’ nces -could not be checked for’ • . ; • . • . • • • 1 • * • • • . • . • , • . pertinence to that aspect of Sheehan'Si approach-avoidance . • * . • . • . . . . rT • • * * theory ’which' dealt 'with the unrealistic "s£lf-concepts .of . • ■ • . . . • • ■ ‘ the..stutterer during ’ the later stages of •therapy.* Howeve.r, an. analysis’*of s.elf.-accep.tance scores in the present dtudy •..*•" * • ‘ • . .-.••• did not > indicate that boys w.hp stuttered had A * se.lf.-concept ’ .. . .• . • : • whi.ch was out of -proportion to -the one ‘ held by the boys, who **, * # * * , , * •*•# did’ not stutter.-. . ’ . * « « • ’ • * * •’ *..••• * • . ' • • The present .study-gave soine. empirical -backing' to • • •****• Williams1 -contentions.that stutterers were not a distinct . • • • • • ■ i group.. Furthermore’ ,. It'would support h'l’s suggestion that « * • * * • •'•** • , • • clinicians shpuld no. longer dis’ cuss" stuttering as if. it’were • * ***.,♦ • • • ty • an entity .within the.-personality structure-.' . ’ • • • • • . • The group, self-descriptions chosen’ by stutterers of *** • • * * • ***** * * * * the present study -wer.e ‘ not considered of-’ajiy Contribution to •the’theories hel’ d. by* FenlchelSolomon,^ Co’ rlat,1^ and ’ ^Joseph (?.’ . Sheehan, in Eugene F.-.Hahn .(ed.)-, - Stut tering : Significant Theories-and Therapies (2d ed, prepared’ ’ by -Elise. S. Hahn; Stanford, Californian .Stanford’University tress, . 1956), -pp. 1.1.0-122..’ ’ . . ' * ' ' ■ • • . ’ ^'Dean E.‘Williams, "A Poin;t of. View About- 'Stutter-- ing,1 " Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders’. ' 22:390-397> •September,. 1957 - *■■-.- • • ’ • 8 ' ’ - *’ ’ * Otto Feplchel, The Psychoanalytic- . Theory of ‘ Neuro sis (New’ Yorkv W.-W.* Norton and Company, .Inc. 19^5j» 703 PP- ^Meyer Solomon,’ "Stuttering as an fimotional. and’ Per sonality -Disorder," Journal of Speech- Disorders. 4:’ 347“357> * December, 1’ 939'. ' * ’ • 1 ^ * • Isador H. .Coriat,”-"The Psychoanalytic Conceptlpn of Stammering," Nervous Child. 2:l67-171,•January, 1943-. Travis., Tftp *.self-descriptions *©f stuttering bqys re-sult- • ♦ • ing from*the present* study were not’^ny more psychologically, ' * significant-than the -selfdescriptions Q'f non-stu.tbering boys . .. • . • • • * * • . • • • I P * * Unlike, the study by Bloods.tei.n and Schrqiber which * • * • *•«*«•** * • was-specifically’designed to, test the presence of-.greater, obsessive-conr\pulsiylty in* s-tutterers, .the‘ present study was not a’test of ■ psychoanalytic theories of stuttering.. 'Al though the present ‘ study-was' in substantial -agreement.‘ with • ' • Bloodstein’ and' Schreiber,'.nonetheless-,; direct'contribution- to contradiction- of * psychoanalytic assumptions can-only 'be . made on a tenuous basis. • ' • III. ' DISCUSS!pi/ RELATING -DATA • ' *, * TO PREVIOUS STUDIES PF'TH? . . . * ' • ^ ‘ • . ' PERSONALITY-OF THE STUTTERER • ' •' The findings of the present .study related speclfical- . •ly-' to experimentation .with'children... Such 3 .-relationship • * * • • * * * * s * , . ( ‘ * * * * • * , was sought purposely because of.'the-lack of r.esearch about the'problem-of stuttering'in childhood. On the other hand, by-keeping these• limitations-in mind-, results could be' • ’ 1 1 " — T * " * ' " . , * ’ ( • . . ' ^Lee-.E. Travis,' "The'Unspeakable Feelings of People', With Special Reference'.to- Stuttering/" Handbook of Speech Pathology (New/York: ..Appleton-Century-Crofts, - I.nc., 1957), pp. 9.16-346. ^ * . . . * ‘ * 12* . * ' > ' * ' Oliver Bloodstein and Lois R.* Schreiber, "Obsessive-. Compulsive Reactions in Stutterers," Journal of- Speech and Hearing Disorders. * 22:33~39,' March,' 1957/ compared •with bindings -from most of the studies whic.h • • % i • •*•****• ' • * » * * * • * , , treated the relationship of personality variables to stutter^ • * * • . . * • t • * * * , . | irig theory and,therapy. ' •..'*.. • . • * • * •***# ,«* * • * , • . . * . ■ Personality studied .of stuttering children. The • , findings-of .the-present-study apid‘those'of • McDowell^ are-in- * * * i * ♦ * , * . close agreement..,. Both studies found'no significant. dif-f,er- • • •*»* ' • i ences between 'stuttering .and non-stuttering1children on tests using words.' ' • • •• ' . " * • , . - .Considerable, conflict exists between th'e present findings and those Of the studies by. Me’ ltzer , ^ Chri’ sten.- sen^.and Krugman.’ * 1 -^ For the most -part, 'these studies used ' popular, projective techniques', principally; ‘ the-Rorschach. ’ . - in addition,. Christensen administered the Thematic ApperCepT * ' 4 • • * * ' ‘ tion' Test; the Trayis-Johnston Test and-a. parent’rating • • . * 1"3 ' • . • . . • •. • . ' - . ' • • • Elizabeth I>.' McDowell, Educational . and Emotional ' Acl.lUstment of' Stuttering Children (-New‘ York: Columbia Uni- \ versity press-,’ 1928 )•; .59 pp. y ' . . ' ' „ - lit * ■’ • . * ‘ .' t ” • - . • ■ H, Meltfeer, "Personality jblfferences'Among Stutter- •ing Children as’Indicated by .the Rorschach Test;-1 1 , American - - Journal' of' Orthopsychiatry4:g'62-282. Apri-l, 193*4; ."Talka-- tivenea's in Stuttering, and Non-Stuttering,Children,’ " Journal of Genetic. Psychology4.6: ‘371~390-,** June-,. 1935; .and "Per.son-' allty .Differenced .Between S.tutterlng.and .Non-Stuttering Children as Indicated b’ y the • ‘ •Rorschach Tes.t," Journal* of- • Psychology17:39~59> January, 1944: . ■ * ‘ 15Arden H. Christensen, "A .Quantitative Study, of Per- *sonali-ty-Dynamics .in Stuttering and Non-Stuttering Siblings," Speech Monographs , . 19:187-188. ■ August', 1952.** (Abstract.*) 1*6 ' • .*;*••*•*** . • ’ , - LDMorris Krugman, '".-Psychosomatic .Study of Fifty Stut-. teringl Children. . Round Table*IV, Rprschaoh- Study," American Journal of .Orthopsychiatry, . l6rl27~133> January, 1945^ 1 compared wi'th findings fr.om most of the studies which . • • • • , • • .treated the .relationship -of personality Variables, tcf stutter1 . ■ . , i ” • • • . * * • I ing theory, and therapy. * ’ .. Per'son'ali.tv studies of stuttering children.. The ’ ' * 1 f * . . , * ( t • •findings -of t’ he present'study and those of McDowell1'^ are in • • * * * close. agreement-. Both* studies found no significant. differ ences-between stuttering and non’ <-stutitering children on* ." • * * * • tests, using, words. ! ' * . ’ Considerable * conflict exists between .the -present * • . * ■ • • • ' i L l •' " . findings and those*,o£ the studies by MeTtzer, Christbn'- * 15 ■ • • ’ •' i 6 ' • * • * • sen . and Krugman. D For the most'.part; these studies, u'sed' popular projec-t’ ive techniques principally the. Rorschach. • . - • r * . . • • Ih.addition; Christensen.administered the. Thematic Appercep tion Tes’ t/ 'the 'Travis1 Johns ton Test, and a'- parent rating ^Elizabeth D: McDowell 'Educational and Emotional’ * • . Adjustment of ’Stuttering Children (New York’ : Columbia Uni- verslty Press-,'1928), 59 pp.. . . . ' ,*. •. ' * ■ 14' ' . • • . ’ ■ * • . - ' . H. • Meltz'er,-'."Personality-Differences Amorig IStu.tter- .ing Children as Indicated by'the RorScha'ch'Test," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 4 :*262-282 /. April, ‘ 1934.;; "Talka.- ti-yene.ss 'in Stuttering and Non-Stuttering Children-/" Journal. .of' Genetic Psycholo'gy, 46:371*-•390,-’ June, •1935‘ J 'ahd * , r Person -* ali.ty.,Differences/Between-Stuttering‘ and Non-S.tuttering ' • ' Children as ."indicated by ’ the “Rorschach Test.1 1 - Journal .qf Psydho-logy^ 17:39.~59, January,. 1944^ * * ; ..*•'' ; . . . . .^Arden H. Chris.tensen* "A'Quantitative’ Study’ *q^'Per- ‘sonallty. Dynamics in* Stuttering and Non-Stuttering Sibling?," Speech Monographs. I9;l87-l88, August', 1952. (-'Abstract.) : \ a . ■ * . ■ ' . ’ Morris KrUgmaa,. "Pfeychosomatic' Study .of Ei-fty Stut-1 • ter ing Children. ' Round Table iy, Rorschach Study," American* • Journal of . Orthopsychiatry. 16:127-133j l January, 194^ • ' • * • * sheet..* These three studies found, gre’ ater emotional insta- • • . » * * • ‘ , • t bility among stutterers than non-stutterers which was. not * • • ' , ■ ' . • the case, in the present study from comparing self Jeva.lua- . • • • • • • •-•••. • . • • tiona of -the two groups. ' . • . * * * » » ' » • « • • If self-descriptlohs are formed by ’ environmental 'irt.- • « * • • * • • . • . • . • • * . * ' * * . * .fluence, then the. present data appear- in disagreement with • *?**•**• » * the studies.of Mohcur.1^ -The results obtained by comparing socio-economic•cl^ss influence upon self-acceptance scores'- * * " | * Q* ■ ■ t* + * *,**.* in the present study . aould. ledd to the hypothesi-s that en- • “ , • • t • * • virorimental influence --varies with- soci'p-e'conomic status • • . •rathpr than with the presence dr absence of stuttering-. Thus, Moncur.1 s and the .present findi-ngs. bear ‘ further study • bo reconcile important-copflidt's. . - ' ■ *• • ' Personality studies of adults or . ' . those • of -college-age. Disagreement:arises by.comparing the'.present 'study .data. With results of trie-administration by. Richardson-"of Form- A of An .*•*** • ‘ iq ‘ • . Inventory of Fdctors -STDCR. . ’There .was no 'significant, indl- cation l’ n the'.present-study, as in Richardson's study*, -that Jjohn P.’Mohcup, "'Environmental Factors Different!-.' a,ting Stuttering Chil'dren from Non-Stuttering Children," Ab stracts of Dissertations:‘Stanford'University. 26:303-305, November 30* 1951J "Pare.ntal Domination in.-Stuttering," * .. Journal of ’Speech* and Hearing' Disorders* . • 17:155~l65‘ , . June, 4 19^2 j# and "Symptomp of Maladjustment .Differentiating Ydun'g ’ Stu.tterers. from NonrStutterers .11. Child' Development, 26:91“ ’ •96, June/ ig55.. • * . • • ' ' . . '. 1 8 • * > - • * • * • cf. pp. . 65-70., • .. •. . . • • • • * • • * • • * ^LaVange H. Richardson, "Th'e’ Personality nf Stutter er‘ s," * Psychological Monographs. .*56:1 -4l. 19.44..’ • . * * stutterers'were more*socially iritrovertlVe, more depressed . • \ . **•***•,* ■or less, happy-go-lucky. Whether, this disagreement.is a func tion .of • difference's‘in. the age level's-or. in the basic de- • •signs of the. two studies could be questioned. Only d tenta tive hypothesis relating, to these'-traits -could''come from the present data based upon the* smaller number* of. -self-descrip tions chosen by-stutterers-..'However/-if the.two age levels are considered, .Richardson's and the present -study compare favorably where* the,findings of the' Rorschach and Thematic -Apperception Test'were-not* significant in differentiating- •between the two groups. • • • • ' . * - . • . .'Present study results-were not.'directly applied to po * ‘ Sheehan ■ add-.Zussman'a-paper. -On the-surface',/though, the evidence of -the.present-.stu'dy of fourth-and eighth gra.'d.e boys Would hot support -the previous findings "tha't. adult stut terers, when compared wi.th.aduit non.-stuttererS, had.more . •achievement drive, overemphasized suppressive.controls, were 'rel.uctant in accepting-dependency needs, showed-, | prevalence of. i-nrier* resources: over channels of .communication" -and used "intellectual defense-against-anxiety.. "21* This conflict . might actually point to a* possible .di'ffer'ene'e' between- boys • • •who stutter aind-adults who stutter • * ' . ‘ • • ...... 2 Joseph G. She.ehan and Charles Zussman, "'Rorsch’ achs ^ of-'Stutterers .Compared with. Clinical. Controls," American ' ■ ' Psychologist. '6:500,* September, 1951’. ’ (AbstractT) •. ’ ?, ; L Ibid. , . • The.finding that stuttering Is compulsive in nature, reported by Madison and Norman using -high- school and adult 22 ‘ * • ' * aged. subjects,. . . was-not. verified by the pre&ent study on . boys.- However, QUarrlngton®s- replication,23. whiie using adults, '-had similar findings to the present study, to the . extent that ho.-significant, difference between: the'two groups', •was found.. - It mbst .be-’ remembered', however,,’ that' the present study-was•npt designed.to- test psychoanalytic theories of stuttering-,, nor the. dynamics-df adulthood...., • ' ■ ‘ : • Had- there ’ been a greater .differeric'e In’ the small num ber of group dea-oriptiohs. chosen'by stutterers' in the'pres*-. ent' study', further' empirical support might have, been, added . . to.Murphy's findings of,more ex-tra’ puhi.t'ivenesS and -less in- . • tropunitiveness, -Combining the’finding of a' tendency toward eg6-'def£n’ sivenjes.3. in • the.-present 'study -with the similar- find- ■ • • • ‘ . pji ings by Murphy and the-theoretical statement of Sheehan, ; some worthwhile- further study might .come .from experiments-., .tipn specifically-designed' to evaluate' this phase of"self- conceptualization. At -least, ego-d'efenSiVeriess also appears to be notldeable in childhood-.' • . * V ... , . 2 2 ' • ’ • . . ‘ * • LeRoi Madison and Ralph \D., Norman, ' rA Comparison of the* Performance of,Stutterers and Non-Stutterers on.thfe Ros- enzwelg Picture-Frustration Test,-" Journal of •’ Clinical.Psy chology. 8:179-183i April* 1952..• ’ • • * 1 * * * 1 * 1 ' 1 *2Q # • • # • * * * Brude. Quarrington,,,MThe Performance • of Stutterers on the Rosenzw'dig Picture-Frustration..Test," Journal' of . ’ ’ Clinical •Psychology; 9:l89_l92, Apr.il, 1953- . ’ ! • * *. • ' 24 ' • • : ' ’ * ' ‘ Sheehan/ Hahn, loc. . ’- cit.. . . ’ . • • Level of aspiration studies bear directly .upon self- concept-studies in’that aspiration involves self-evaluation. The findings of’the present study-were such,' however* that . any, direct'comparison, to* level of-aspiration study was not possible. .This comparison could not be made-primarily be cause, the .present .study was not designed to measure .goal*- striving. ■ . ; . The'-Rotter -Incomplete-Sentences Test'.and’ .the Personal- • * * i « ’ , • Audit furnished results-similar to those‘of the present. ’ ■ ' study- ..in that ho'significant-differences'were apparent.be tween "stutterers .and-'non-stutterers. . -Bbars’ s^ found.no dif'- » \ • • • * » Terences in personal maladjustment’ between.stutterers and- . non-s-tutt.erers. with these .techniques.'- The -use in the pres ent study of. self-acceptance scores for an index of. adjust ment did-not differentiate between .the two. groups‘either. - . Thus,- on this-’series of studies,; b'oy and adult ‘stutterers * * . bp.th, appear, similar to-non-stut.tere'rs. . . * * . * * * • • * * Conflicting results came from the present study and- . - - - ■ . - .. pg • - • ' - •from one. reported by Bender.;. .He found that gollege-age. stutterers . t were .significantly higher in .neurotic tendencies, were more introverted,’ less domlnan-t, iesi confident and less sociable.' .'Present data on boys canno't support 'such - ' - * . • . * ; * f * ^toyal M*. Bearss, "An Investigation of Conflict -in - Stutterers and Non-StutterersSpeech . ' Monographs , • 18:237- •238/ August, 1951. ’ ’ ’ ’ • 1 . • ’ . • , * » * • • . • ■ . 26 " . . . . . . - , Jame's £*. ’ Bender-, "The Stuttering PerspnalityAmer Mcari Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 12:140-1*46., January, 1942. . .conclusion's. However, suppo*rt‘can be giveri. to a similar • • ‘ ' * * * . *07 * * • study, -by Johnson ' • which indicated that1the maladjustment in s.tutterers, ranging in age from .seven to forty-two years-, was insignificant.- • •• • ' * ■ •' • ... .Comparisons, of present findings with those -of. Dun- " pO j • ,***•*+ * . can • would, be difficult" to reconcile 'wi.thout abstract i n ference. Prom the.descriptive level, however,-it would.be difficult to* support Duncan in. the finding-that-'stutterers ' have significantly more undesirable home environments than - . non-Stutteters. ' Boy stutterers of the. present-.study'gave no . indication of less-favorable .s’ elf-acceptano.e -.than non-stut tering boys. .These evaluations receive considerable support' from the. home, environment..,. ... ' • ' ‘ . ■ • • .. . ’ Using-the Rotter•Incomplete' Sentences, Smith fdurid no • . results, 'differentiating stutterers, from non-stut'terers 'Thin?, bo.th Smith's.and the-present study agree;-' On. the oth- • er hand, conflicting'.’ results-come from comparing' the present ‘ - ‘ ’•.Vo' ' .study with the one by Boland. . .-The.present study could not 2^Wendell .Johnson, ' ’The In-fluenc-e. .of’S.tutteririg'on ' . - the Personality-," University of Iowa 'Studies: Studies, in : . Child Welfare. -5:1-140, April 1,. 1932. / . ; ' 28 ' • ' • -. Melba H. -Dunc.an, '"Home-Adjustment of Stutterers. Versus- Non'-S'tutterers," Journal of 'Speech' Disorders. -14:255- 259'> September.,' • 1949.. • • ' - . ... * oq . * • ' • * * . ■ *. • 4 ; • ' ^Walter.E. Smith, "A Comparison of the Responses of Stutterers-and Non7S.tutterers -in ‘a College Population on the Plotter Incomplete Sentence Blank," .Speech-Mctnographs. 20: 198, -August, 1953- (Abstract.) ' • * * * • ' -3Q * ‘ ' . ' D John L. Boland,. "A-Comparison of Stutterers '-and • confirm Bol£ncr s findings that overt expression of anxiety.** •. * • i % * * • i 4 , . * was" significantly, greater for the stutterer than*.fo‘ r the.. ‘ * . . * * . . . non-rstutterer. • Had this been apparent, the boys would most * t . i ' , • • • * « •• i likely have chosen unfavorable adjectives* as an outlet*;for* overt’ anxiety. Such, was n'ot .the case, however. * . ' . • Because the present study did* not’ introduce any in- . 'tprVening experimental variable-,, such , as frustrating dis- *• • »*♦ »**». tractions*,’no direct, comparison; was feasible with ‘ the studies by Berlinsky^l and Solomon.-^2 . ...” * Summary statement on. relating- present study _ to past- studies. In summary-the- present 'study findings * tended to s * * » * support . those previous .studies which had.'found’ :no. signifi-r cant differences when ‘ comparing either the self-‘ concepts', or.- the more, generalized personality 'traits'of stutterers . and non-*stutterers, '‘ There still-..remain'ed .a. substantial riumber . ' 'of studies with which'-the present study -was. either in -con- . * i * * . * * , . ' * , * "fliot or was. not directly comparable''. ; ' - ' ' ' • • .'Disc'ussio'n ,of"the relationship-- of ’.the present . . • * 4 • * ' • > >« t ■ - ■ ■ ‘i ■ ■ t t ' • * * , N6n-Stutterers bn Several Measures of.-AnxietySpeech Mono graphs; 20 :’ l44,- June', * 19$3 • ’.'(Abstract.) ' . ' ^Istanley L * . ' .Berlinsky,; "A .Comparison of Stutterers. ' and NonLStutterers in Four*Conditions of^Experimentally In-* 'duced Anxiety," Dissertation Abstracts. l4:-719, ;1954. • • * ..- ^2Nancy-D. Solomon, ".A Comparison-of'Rigidity'of. Be-' .havior-Manifested' by a. Group. of Stutterers compared'y/ith . 'Fluent1 Speakers *in Oral and Othe-r Performahces as Measured • by. the Elnstel’ lungrEff ect." . . Speech Monographs ,. 19 :19&, 'August; 1952..* (Abstract. J l * findings to those .of previous studies was ori .a tentative basis for several reasons-.• .The present study was not deVel7 oped to test hypotheses bearing updn any one particular • ' a * , i ' I , piece of res'earch; Onl-y loose generalizations'could be made in some cases • because of'the differences. in design and the age-level of the ' subject's. Actually/ the hypotheses of thq- present study -were 'directed.to -the major issues of.contro versy. . \ ■ ‘ • Aside .from -comparison -with the present study, it might .be said' that-experimentation'indicated differing r.e: - .suits when different investigators used the same psychomet ric -instruments. . The major .exception, to 'this generalization was-'ln the use of .the.-Rotter Incomplete Sentences. • . Studies using' the-Rotter technique-consistently found, no. significant differences-, between stutterers .and non-stutterers . - ’ Basic . - similarities were noted between this -incomplete ‘ sentenc'e ' ■ * * + *' ' * * « • * * technique..'and thetechnique- developed -for the present study. The-major difference w^s in the use, by 'the‘ .lncomple’ te sen tence technique,” of open-ended association,. while th'e tech'-- nique of. the/present study forced-a-choice-,'• ‘ HowoVer,- both techniques are basically word-associat-ional in nature, if the-analogy, holds,- then it' might be hypothesized that-a reputation of the .present study'would give slrpilar findings 'This hypothesis receives further support from, the adjectiv.e' check-list1 s .'demonstrated reliability• ’ ' •’ - . * * ^ * i • * ■ - * i * The reported sensitivity o'f adjective check lists 4 • • (noV found'in this study) might be partially a function.of ‘ ’ * • ‘ the difference^'in levels of the sophistication of vocabu- 33 • ' . • • • * . lary. . . Because of the need to consider readability,, the t • • • ' • Words used in the present- * studjr lacked the subtle shadings. * ‘ of connotatiye. poweh possible in. the adult, vocabularies' of . , the other check list studies. ‘Furthermore, the..Judges tended to select those, words which Were most’ dibhotomous. . Such a' ' . chance arrangement would prove difficult'to deal.with iq . ' language tests with children. * • This.experience suggests thdt future studies whioh attempt'-to differentiate - . stuttering . from non-stuttering boys wii*l 'most likely rieed to be. based ' upon far more ambiguous'terminology than the clearly-stated language of simplified..adjective check -lists'. • ■ • Beoaube'of • the difficulties -in locating-appropriate . experimental* subjects, the sample'-, of the present -study-may- have..been too. small for highly sensitive.measurement of dif ferences.- However, to.'loc.at'e the .experimental• subjects for the present study it was -necessary-.-to select * fr6m 'a total.'.' sohool. population of approximately 80,000. The .study im^ ! * • * ' ' 4 * . • * * posed 'a.,requirement that the 'Subject could, read-the check list and that he had a reported normal intelligence quotient.- •" ''^Harrison G. Gough, "Reference Handbook for the , - Gough-Adjective ’ Check-List"‘(Berkeley: The University' of . California Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, April,. 1955)- ’ (Mimeographed.-); T.- , R., Sarbin and B.- G. .Hos-' enberg, -"Contributions to Role-Taking Theory-: . IV.: . A-Method, for- Obtaining .a Qualitative‘ Estimate of the Self.11' The' Jour nal ' of Social- Psychology; ,4£: 71’-8l, January, -1955•' ' . These two factors had a tendency to eliminate’ , potential sub- ' • * • ’ jectp. Such a limitation needs to be* kept ijt mind when ex- • • . ' * * ' . amining the results .of* the pre.sent study. ‘ ^ * 4. .* # • , « • • The final alternative wdul’ d - seeni tq be that there- * ’ ' , *4 ' * • 4 ^ ' * r,eally is no definable stuttering personality -which' is. •' unique from any-other. ‘ Much of the present literature, ■ alohg'.wlth .the. findings of the present .study, Would tend to point'stfohgly toward recognition of-this alternative. • .' . -.CHAPTER* VII . * • • • ' . /. “ • . • * * • '* ‘ ' SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS *' . * ' * ■ • . * • • • ' ♦ * ♦ ' * • ' . . • . * * . I*;. SUMMARY * ' . .1 * * : It. was the purpose of 'this study, to investigate cer- •tain- relationships, between the .-sel-f-concepts .of boys-who' . • stutter and boys who do not* ■ The--.study wa*s designed-to test the hypotheses- that (l).boys who' stutter have-less -favorable self-concepts-than .boys who do not stutter,.(2) unique self- « • * • * 1 • • i , * , . * description's would, result, from the study of self'-conc'epts. of ■ ’ boys .who-.stutter and .boys..'who do not, and (3) eighth grade-. : ’ boys; who.' stutter have less favorable .self'-.’ concepts-than- . ' • fourth'..grade • boys who. stutter. ' ; . No-'previous .study had-been found which compared dif-. Terences between the'self^concepts ' o'f stutteri-rtg and non-'' . stuttering boys.;.. ’ . • • '*•..• . . ' . ’ Empirical studies and rational Statements which were : * • *.*#"* ' • ' pertinent to .the'present-study were reviewed. .- • • ' ' • -. The pilpt study was designed' to,discover any'rela- '• tionships betwden the self-acceptance of stuttering and-'-non- stutteri'ng boys. .-Subjects- for .the pilot .'study were'eight. • "stuttering boys rftatched with.eight non-stuttering boys who " were selected from the, fou-rth- and .eighth .grades of public schools in or hear Santa Rosa. A-sorting task'was adminis-- tebed which.used sixty* favorab-le and sixty unfavorable adjective^. chosen, by judges.* Results otftained°indicated • • 1 * * • • * t • # ■that there, was no significant difference between the self- • • . .*« • • • • acceptance of .boys who stutter*an,d*boys who dt> not.* Since * * * * * •*...••• * / . • *i. the.pilot*study lacked certain refinements, these cohclu- , * * • .sion's were •accepted' only tentatively. . • . • • . • * * * ■ * * Certain modifications and refinements were carried ■over into the major -study. . The* numbpr of** subjects was ip- creased to' fifteen* matched- fourth grade pairs* and fifteen matched 'eighth grade.pairs. The. sorting task was replaced * by a.check llst'ibdoklet--of thirty-two favorable .and thirty- two unfavorable,adjective's' . ' . . : • . * ’ . A -reliability study of. the technique'was. carried out .which-resulted in-coefficients that were.significant beyond' the. .01 level of confidence. . ' ' . • ' The' ..05-level of, confidence was* established for .sig nificance in' the major study, analysis. 'Testing five null . hypotheses produced,fifteen specific findings which-were in-1 terpre.ted in- 'relatipnship to -themselves-and previous Work In .this area'of, study'. - ; • . •• : . • I!.- 'CONCLUSIONS • : • • . • ■Conclusions are listed-iri ..the. same order that thfe . . specific.questions *of .the-statement of-the problem were • • * • • • * * ■ * ' • ’ * asked/ .The Conclusions .are. considered to. be answers- to. . * ' * • * • * • . . • • • , . ; these specific^ questions arid are based upon the findings of . * * . • - * * . ' • . the .major study.* . * * * *. ' • .* ■ On t^he* basis of t'he findings of the experiment which. • ’ • ’ has* been described here, ancT considering the sp.egif*ic liftii — . • • * * , * • • * • i • tationS of this study, the following conclusions Seem War- . * * - .-ranted’ : - . * - . * • * • •* .**• • • ‘ * • ’ 1*. There is no significant difference .between, the. • • self-acceptance of boys who stutter -and hoys, who do not at • . ... * ’ • the same1-grade levei whCn -measured, by an experlmenter-de-. * . signed adjective' check-list. . . . • ♦ . * * • « • + * ♦ ' 2..' There 3eem, to be-self-descriptions significantly unique both to particular-groups of boys wh.o stutter arid ‘ to- particular groups of boys who" do.not stutter. Thes'e; sel-f-'. descriptions, follow:; . ’ • ' ■ . . ' : . d. - Pgurth'grade ’ stuttering boys]: "useful," • • ' "good" and "helpful:".", -f- • . . . . • ‘ b.. Fourth'grande’non-stuttering' b.oys: "kind," . 1 "good," "fair,"'"friendly,''" "thankful" .and "cheerT.ui.' . c.,..Eighth grade stuttering .boys: ' .-"happy." . ' .. 'd. Eighth grade nQh-stuttering boys;, . "usefuli". ‘ • • i # • • * • ' '.'thankful" and. '"alive." • . . • '/ • r ■ . . ’ , 3-' There is: only one -self-attribute' which: is 'sign-if-l cantly different .for boys who stutter'and*, boys 'who do hot'. . when compared^ at'the same grade leVel. This self-attribute • • • . .... . is "just" which-w.as bhosbn s’ignlfloantly**more by fourth • ' . ’ : ■ * • •. • ' grade .non-stutterfers than ‘ by'fourth gbade stutterers.. « • • * • # * • « » * 4'. .There is rjo significant 'difference betweer^ the . * • ' • • ■ . self-acceptance of'stuttering .boys of t^o-grpde levels-and’ o • ’ 9#-" • • ° « • • * * • • • • • * 1 * • npn-stuttprlng boys df the same* two grad’ e levels when meas- * » * * « * • , t ured by .an experimenter-designed adjective check-list. • * . * # « • t5* There*.ar$ two self.-&ttribute3 which are signlfi- ’ * • * • • . * cantly different for sputtering boy s. *of **ttoo grade .levels arid ■ ■ ' • H • * • • -.i, ■non-stuttering bo^s.of the same two grade levels.. Wonder- * * • • * • * ful" was'chosen-'significantly Wrfe'for a self-attribute-by . * • ( t * • * fourth grade stutterers than by .eighth grade stutterers. • • • * • . * * • ........ i * • * * t , ."Just" was .chosen significantly more 'for a- self-attribute* by • • * ' . * * ‘ * ‘ • ’ ' • . • 'eighth grade stutterers than by fourth.grade* stutterers. BIBLIOGRAPHY a .: BOOKS * ' 4 • Anastasl, Anne. •Psychological Testing.• * New York: The Mac millan .Company, 1954. £> 82- pp. . ‘ • . * * * Cpenbach, Lee J. Essentials ‘of- Psychological Testing. . ’ l-Jew ‘ York:' Harper .and Brothers, 1949-* 475 pp.. . . * * * • * * * JSdwardd, Allen L. Experimental Design - ih Psychological Re search. ■ New York: .Rinehart 'and Company', 1950- ^4<p .pp. - Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences.' • -New York: -Rinehart and Company, Inc.; 1954. 542 pp. Feni'chel, Otto. The' Psychoanalytic. Theory of - Neurosis. -New . . ' York: ;W. V/. Norton, and Company, Inc : ,.‘ 19^5. • 703' pp. . * Hahn,. Eugene F.'.(-ed.). Stuttering: Significant ‘Theories and ‘.Theradles. Second edition, prepared- by Elise S. .Hahn; ' Stanford, California: Stanfdrd.University Press,' 1956. 180 -pp*. ‘ • • . . McDowell, Elizabeth D.- Educational, and Emotional Adjustment .of Stuttering Children. -N.ew. York: Columbia University. . Press,• 1928’ . .59. PP• • •’ ' McNemar/ Quinn. Psychological Statistics. New York: - John ‘ ‘Wiley add Sons, Inc., 1955-: 408 pp, * * «,* < • s, 1 « • ■ Rlnsland, Henry - D . - . - A Basic’ Vocabulary of Elemental School. ‘ Chi-ldren. • New ’York: • Thfe Macmillan.- Company'1945, by t-he 'University'of Oklahoma.* 636 pp. * ■ Smith, ‘G.'Milton.' A Simp 1*1 f.l*ed Guide . ' to .Statistics . New . ■ Ypr.ki Rinehart .and Comp'any, 1946.* -109-pp. • • . ; . * •** * • , # - • 1 * , * * ‘ * * • * Tiegs/ ’ Ernest. W.,’ and Willis ,W\ Clark. • Manual: • California. ; ' . '' Achievement Tests Complete - Battery. Elementary Forms W,! . . * X,Y,Z. .Los' Angeles: California. Test Bureau, 1957.• * 62 • •pp- **'• ' *• ' ■ . , . : • * . ;. • « * * * • • , • * . • • . . • • * , * ' . - ; . Manual: California .Achlevem'ent Tests Complfete.Ba.t- ' tery. Junior High Level Form W.X.Y.Z. Los Angeles:.Qal- '* ••ifornia Test-Bure’ au, 1957. -.62 pp. ' * ' • • • •••„• • • • . .Underwood, Bent.on. J. ‘ Psyeholggjcal Research. New York: . Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc*, 1.957. ' • 298 pp. • ■ » * ‘ B.. PERIODICALS . • * * • Allport, tfordon W., and Henry S. Odbert. -"Trait Names: A Psycho-lexipal Study," Psychological Monographs, 47:1-7.1, * * • ‘ . * * Bearss, Loyal M. "An-Investigation of '.Cdnfliet. in .Stutter- ' ers and Non-Stutterers," Speech Monographs, -.18:237-238.‘ August, 1951 • • (Abstract\ ) • • *• . * * Bender,- James F. "The Stuttering Personality," American Journal . ‘ of Orthopsychiatry. 12:140-146, January, 1942. • * . * . * * ’ Bloodstein, Oliver, and Lois.R. Schrlpber. "Obsesslve-Com-? puls'ive Reactions in Stutte’ rdrs," Journal 'of Speech and Hearing Disorders r 22:33*“39* March, 1957* •' • . Boland, Johh -L. "A Comparison .o.f Stutterers and" Non-S tut-. . ' tereps on’ --Several Measures', of .Anxiety*" Speech’ Mono- • graphs, 20:144, June, 1953- -(Abstract.) • . . .' . . Bugental, James F. T . . - , And Seymoqr L. Zelen. "invastig-a- • tions into the 1 §elf-Concept.I. -The W-A-Y Technique," . ‘ Journal of -Personality. -18:483-498, June, 195.0. Christensen,- ‘ Arden H. -"A Quantitative -Study of ‘ Personality Dynamics in Stuttering and Non.-Stuttering- Siblings," • . • ' • -Speech Monographs, 19:187-138, August, .1952.. (Abstract.) Combs,.Arthur W. "A Phenomenological ApproAch to 'Adjustment - . Theory.," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44:. '• •29-, 35* January, 19^9. •’ . . • ’ ’ * * , * 1 , , ' . * , Corlat., Isadpr H.- ."The. Psychoanalytic-'-Conception of’ Stam4 ’ . me-ring/' Nervous- 'Child, 2.:l67.-17i/ January,- 1943.. * » ' 1 , • Duncan,. Melba H. . ‘•"‘ Home -Adjustment of. Stutterers Ver.sus kon- / • ' Stut.'terers,u Journal of Speech Disorders , 1-4:255“259.* . * . September,. 19^9 • • ” ' • . . ' ’ * •***•* * , * , •• Fielder, -Fred E., and Joseph: M. Wepman'.. "An Exploratory .In vestigation of the Self-Concept of Stutterers,". * ‘ J.ournal • of Speech- and Heating Disorders / 1-61110-114,. June. 1‘ 951 * ' ; . • • ’ J-q-hhspn;’Wendell\ ."The-Influence' "of Stuttering on the Pef- . 'sonalityr" - University of Iowa Studies: Studies 'in .Child • -Welfare, - 5:1-14b, April 1. *1932. . . - * * • • Krugman, Morris. "Psychosomatic Study of Fifty Stuttering*’ . -Children. Rdund Table .LV.* Rorschach Study," American Journal of Orthopsythla’try. 16:127-133*. January, 1946. McQuitty, Louis... "A Measure of Personality Integration in • 'Relation to the Concept of Self*," Journal of'Personality. 18:461-482, June, 1950.- ■ ’ i • Madison, LeRoi, and Ralph D. Norman. "A Comparison of the Performance of. Stutterers and Non-Stutterers on the Ros- enzweig Picture-Frustration Test,"‘Journal of Clinical Psvcholdgy. 8:179-183, April/ 1952. • « . • , . • . • • * • • Mast, Vernie- R. "Level of Aspiration as a Method of Study ing the Personality‘of Adult Stufcte-rers . Speech Mono graphs . ■ 19:196, August, • 1952 . * ‘ • Meltzer,- H. . "Personality" Differences Among Stuttering Chil- • • . - dreri .as Indicated by the Rorschach Test," American Jour- ■hal of Orthopsychiatry . . 4,;262-282‘ . .Apv.5.1, 1934. •■ '"Personality Differences‘Between Stuttering and Non-Stuttering Children as Indicated by’ the Rorsdhach • ‘ • ‘ Test/" Journal of Psychology, ‘ 17:39‘ ~59, January, 1944." • • • "Talkativeness in Stuttering and Non-Stuttering' . ' . • Children," Journal of- Genetic Psychology. 46;371-390, . Juri.e,-'3.935-“ " ~ v . . • ‘ ' . / ' ' '* Moricur, John.P/ "Parental. Domination in .Stuttering,".Jour- * na-i of Speech and Hearln'g Disorders-. 17:155-165, Juhe, . ' . 1952.-:. . ‘ ; ' . ’ ‘ 'f , Symptoms of Maladjustment Differentiating Ypung.' * Stutterers from. Non-Stutterers," Child - DevelopmentT 26:' *91-96, ’ June, 1955- ... ■ ' * • Murphy, Albert-T., Jr. . / 4 1 An* Electroencephalographlc Study of • .: . . Frustration in S-tut.terers," Speech Monographs. 20:148- : • ’ * 1* 49, . June, .1953. (Abstract. ) ■ • . f • . • ... . * . • .... Quarrl'ngton,-Bruce.- ."The Performance of Stutterer s.-on the • ‘ ROsenzwelg Picture-Frustration Test," Journal of Cllni- - ‘ ‘ cal Psychology. 9:1*89-19.2; .April, 19$3- • ( ♦ 1 * • t * Richardson, . LaVarigo H..t "The Personality of Stutterers^" • Psychologi'cal Monographs. 56 :l-4l1944:- - • • • « * * # * • * • * * • • # •Sarblri,. T.- R.., and B. G\ Rosenberg,- ^Contributions to -Role-’ * • Taking Theory! IV. A‘Method ;fpr Obtaining q . Qualitative Estimate *oi, ‘ the Self," The Journal of So’ clal Psychology. . . • * *42:71-81,' January, 1955. • •.*•••• . ’ ‘ • , - • .1 • • • • - Sheehap, . Josep'h G. Projective Studies* pf Stuttering," • Journal of 'Speech ‘and Hearing .Disorders 23:18-25Feb*- ruary, 1958. . • * . . . •.*.*.. ** . ^Sheehan, Joseph G., and Seymouf L': .Zelen. "A Level of Aspi ration Study of Stutterers,1 1 American Psychologist. 6: 500, September, 1951- { Abstract1 .) . * * * * •» * * ^ "Levels of Aspiration in Stutterers arid Non-Stut-* terers," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 51: 83-86, July, 1955. . • ; • . ' * * • . • • . • Sheehan, Joseph G., and Charles. Zussman'. "Rorschachs of Stutterers Compared with* Clinic'al Controls," American *. ‘“Psychologist. 6:500, September, 19jpl. (Abstract.) ” * * 1 • t « . • . Smith, Valter E. l l A Comparison of the Responses of Stutter ers and Non-Stutterers .in -a College Population on the ’ .Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank, Speech'Monographs. 20-:198, August, 1953-* (Abstract.) . . • Solopionj Meyer. • "Stuttering as an Emotional and Personality Disorder." - Journal of .Speech' Disorders. 4:347'-357, De- ' ..camber, 1939* ‘ ■ Solomon, Nancy D. "A.Comparison of Rigidity of Behavior '• Manifested .by a Group'of Stutterers Compared with• • 'Flu-’ • ,ent' Speakers in Oral and Other Performances * as Measured '.by the Ein.steilung-EffectSpeech Monographs, 1'9:198’ , August., 1952'. . . ■ • s , • * ' * * * . * . • • * « 1 ’ , ’Sortiniy,Adam J. "Twenty Years of Stuttdrlng Research*"'Ex- / ceptlpnal Children, 21:181-183- , 196, February,- 1955'*' • • Steer, Max*D.. "Symptomatologies of- Yqung Stutterers,'1 -Jour nal rif Speech Disorders . ,2: 3^13 j . -Marbh,< 1937- . ' • . • • * ' * <1 * , * .** f t . • . J______ , " and Wendell Johnson.. * . "An Objective Study, of the Relationship Between Psychp-logi'cal Factors'and the* Se- • • . • verity o-f.-Stutteringj " • Journal of ‘ Abnormal‘ and-' Social ‘Ps vohology . 31:36-46, April - ‘ .June., * 1936. ~ * • ' , * * • Walnut, Francis. "A'Personality Inventory Item .Analysis- of Individuals Who Stutter and Individuals' Who Haye Other . . Handicaps,"' Journal of Speech’and Hearing Disorders. 19: ■ 220-227, June, 195• • ’. ' / — . . • - . * , . * • • • . . . Williams, *Dean E. "A Point,.Of‘ .View About ' Stuttering, 1 ' . : -* * * Journal of Speech. aricL Hearing Disorders . 22:390-397., September, 1957- • ' • . * . • • ' " • * . * . . - * • * . * . * Zel’ en, Seymour L.f Joseph G.'Sheehan, and ^ James .F*.'Bugentad . "Self-Perc.eptions in Stuttering, Journal, of Cllnioal- • Psychology. 10:^0-72, January, '.IS^^"- ' * * C. -ESSAYS AND ARTICLES'IN COLLECTIONS * • • • • • . Anderson, John E. "Methods of-Child Psychology," Manual of Child' . Psychology« New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., • 1954. -Pp. 1-59.* . . * * Bdrlinsky, Stanley L.- "A Comparison of'Stutterers and Non- . Stutterers in Four Conditions of Experimentally Induced Anxiety*" Dissertation Abstracts, 14:719/ 1954. • Bernhardt, Roger B. -"Personality Conflict and the Act of Stuttering," Dissertation Abstracts. 14*:709, 1954- “ r —: Johnson, -Wendell. ‘ in* Eugene F. Hahn {©cl.),* stuttering: Sig- *nifleant Theories and.Therapies. Second edition’pre pared by Elise S.-Hahn; Stanford, California: Stan'ford University Pr’ ess, 1956.. Pp.’59~70. Moncur,' John P. "Environmental-'Factors Different la ting' * Stuttering.Children From’ Non-Stuttering Children, " Ab stracts of Dissertations: ‘Stanford University . ’ 26:303- . 305> November 30,. 19J5L-‘ . ' ■ . ' . Sheehan-* • Joseph G..’ InEugerie.F. Hahn (-ed.), Stuttering: ■ . Si’ gnlfleant. Theories -and' Therapies. ' Sedond. edition pre- •pared by Elise S. Hahn; Stanford, California: Stanfor.d" 'University Press, 1956. Pp. -110-122...' • . • • * . * « • , t *, Travis., .Lee-E'. "The Unspeakable Feelings of People, With . Special Reference.'to Stuttering," Handbook of Speech - • Pathology. New 'York: Appletoh-Century-Crofts, Inc., • -.1957. pp.-916-946. • . . ’ ’ • ' / \ • * ’ D. . UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS . ' ’ Gough;. Har.ri'son* G. . ’ "Reference Handbook for the.’ Gough Adjec tive Check-List. Berkeley: -The University .of Callfor-' . nia'Institute of Personality'Assessment’ and Research, April* 1955». (Mimeographed.) Rahman,‘Persephone. "The Self.-Concept and-ideal Self-Concept of ’ Stutterers as Compared, to'Non-’ Stutte-re'rs." .Unpub- .•’* lished Maste.r! s thesis., Brooklyn'College, Brooklyn; . 1956, e * . *AP.PENDIX *A ' • * ’ • * • » • * * • * INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES AND ORIGINAL LIST OF ADJECTIVES i • i \ • AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF SELF-CONCEPTS • • . • • You are invited to participate in an experimental study of certain relation- ships .between the self-concepts of boys -who stutter and boys-who'do not. ’ Although • * your contributign will take time and thought on your part, it is hoped it will! • • ,# • • • prove interesting and worthwhile. Your careful cooperation will be of the.utmost ■ • • • • • * i assistance to the experimenter* Thank yott Tor participating* * . * . *• • • " • • Attached you will find a list of adjectives. By actual inspection ■of a • • voaabulary list; these adjectives should *be* within the first four thousand, words * m • * • * * • of both fourth graders and eighth graders. Some of these adjeqtlV’ es lend them-r. ' selves readily to the description of aspects of personality, vJhile others do not. - * • . • * • ' * Thus, you are asked to check in the appropriate column according to your -opinion: • . . • • * # /\* 4 * •• •**" * • 1. "Favorable-(F) If the adjeqtive gives • a positive description of an * ■ • , , • — * . • -aspect of personality. * •* ’. * . • - * - ' • • ’ ’ • . * •' 2.. Unfavorable (Unf). If the adjective gives a negative description of an • : ’ . - . * * ' • • * • . • • ' - • aspect of personality. • . • - • . • • • ♦• • • * * * #* • • * • • * * 4 3. Undecided (?) If the adjective-seems to-lack descriptive .powgr in rela- .’ ■ - - *! • • ’ tion* to an aspect of personality, o'r is *not definitely positive -or * - * . • - . .. • • . * , / . negative in. this regard.* . . * . • . . ‘ • .- ■ •There is no set amount which should be checked in any column, bt’ t yod are * •. • . « * * , . • * encouraged to avoid *checking "undecided" if possible. Please try your best to * • * • • give a favorable qr unfavorable rating. . . - * . • . • • • • • . . • ... • * • • • * ( For statistical purposes, would yq,u please furnish th’ e following information: • • _ * • • * • * • • • • # • * • • • • • • - Occupation_________ • .« . * . • •• • • . Number of years’ of professional experience’with children *_______ . • « • * Number of years of professional’ training, pertaining to understanding* children* o **oo * a * * • *»o® and their Individual differences .___________ *_______"_________ . . • Any special training with children's speech pr obi ana? Yes________ No________ Any background in personality theory? Yes No o 9 • • • • • • • « • . • 9 • O O O o • O e * • • 9 • 0 • • • • f t • 1T>3 ~ y . . 1 • « • • * • • • • A D J E C T I V E • C H E C K L I S T * * • f t 9 • • • F U n f ? • F U n f * 7 9 F U n f ? • ( > ( ) ( a b l e j C m * 9 • * c h o s e n 9 ( ) ( ) ( <« f a t * .**.(• • ) ( ) a f r a i d • ) ( ) c l e a n ( ) 9 ( ) ( 9 f a v o r i t e .( * ) * ( ) c a l i v e * • ) ( ) c o m f o r t a b l e '•< ) ( ) ( f i e r c e ( ) ( ) ( . a l o n e ) ( ) c o m m o n . C ) ( ) (' f i n e ( ) ( ’) ( • A m e r i c a n ) ( ) • c o r r e c t • • ( ) ( ‘) ( f i t * * ( ) t > (• a n g r y • c r a b b y • ( ) ( } ( f o n d « • • •( . ) (• ) { a n x i o u s ) C *) * c r a 2y ( ) • , f t ( ) ( • f o o l i s h ( ) ( ’> c a s h a m e d . ) ( ) c r o s s ( ) f t ( ) C f r e e • • • • ( ) .( ) ( ’ a t t r a c t i v e ) ( ) c r y e l p t f r e s h . C .)•. ’( ) ( a v e r a g e . )• ■(•)* c u t e (*>• c ) (. f r i e n d l y • # * .. •( ) ( ) ( a w a k e ’ ) ( ■) . ft . d a g g e r o u b ( ) • • .( ). ( f r i g h t e n e d * • . . c ) ( ) < * a w f u l 4 * ■'’ J \ J f t • d a r l i n g f t ( ) •( '>■:< • ’* • f u n n y ( ) ( ) S ' b a c k w a r d * , * • • d e a r « f t . c. c- ) ( g a y • . ( ) . ( ) (. b a d . * * . ) ( ) d e c e n t * c ) ( • • ) (• \ • g l a d . ( ) A (' b e a u t i f u l ’ ** • ’) . ( ) . d ’ e l i g h t f u l * ■ ♦ • ‘ c y ( y •(• g o o d • • .( ) ( ) . ( . b e s t 1 f 1 f t d e n s e • • c ) • ( ) ( ‘ g r A n d • . ( )* ( ) • *( • b e t t e r . . ) C ) d i f f e r e n t * (.•) ( » ) ( • g r e a t - ' < . ) ,( ? • ( b i g « d i f f i c u l t - ( > • ( ) ( g r o w n • • '*.* ( • ). (.) • ( • b o l d . d i r t y * . , • c ) • c ) ( h a n d s o m e • • • * ( •• • • ) f t ’(• ) ( • * « b o t h e r e d • * ) ( ) • • d i s a p p o i n t e d . t )* i ) ( h a p p y ' * • * • ( ) ( ) (.* • b r a v e ’ ' • • 0 e * a r l y . . < • } ’( • ) ( • • h a r d - • c ) P * c * / b r i g h t J *\ J » e q u a l • . < ) •< ) ( * h a t e d . * * 9 ( )*. ( ) • (• • • b u s y • 0 • ) < ). 9 9 • q v i l • ’ . ( > c r x . • ft* * h e a l t h y . . * • • c • ( ft ) ) ( ) • * ( ) ( (® * • c a r e f u l * •. • • c a r e l e s s o ft • 9 9 \ 9 / \ ) C ) • o « f t e x c i t e d • f a i r • .* x \ * } ( ( ) c • •) ( • 9 h e a v y • «• * h e l p f u l ■ . °( • ) ( y • ( c e l e b r a t e d •/ \ / f t f a m o u s C ) ( 9 .> • < h i g h * • c ) ( ) ( • c e r t a i n ) ( ) f t 9 f a n c y ( ) ( ). ( h o n e s t < ) ( ) < c h e e r f u l ) ( ) f a s t ( ) ( ) ( h u g e ) hungry • * (•)*().( • •lovely ' ( ) ( ) ( ♦ } hurried * ( ) ( ) ( loving . ( ) ( ) ( ) ill * (.)()( lucky ' ( ) ( ) ( ) important ( ) C ) ( ’ lying ( j ( ) ( ) 'intelligent ( ) ( ) ( mad ()()*( ) interested ( ) ( ) *( • • mean ().(•) ( ) interesting *.•()•(..) ( merry . ' .()()( ) jealous .().() ( • model . ( ) ( ) ( ) jolly ‘ . ()(*)(. modern . ( ) ( ) ( ) just . ( } .( J .( * • natural ( ) * ( ) ( ) kind . ' ()().( • « . neat • ( ) ( ) ( • ) kindly ‘ .()•*<)( 0 • • * needed • • ().()( • ) • lame . ( .) ( ) •( hice '.( )’ ' ( • )* ( ) large. •(*)()( • • old. ( ) e ) ( ) last * . .*() ().( • pkle • ' . ( ) ( ) ( • ) late* ( ) . ( ) ( .perfect . C ) ( ) . ( $ -laughing . • ( 0 . (*). C plain • ( } ( )• ( • ) .lazjr * . • ( ) (•)•(* . pleasant * ( ) ( ) ( m ) ^least ( ) • C ) ( polite • - ( ) ("). ( O • ).- less . “ <)()(. O 9 • poor . . •( ) ( ) £ ) ligtft * * („) C.) ( ° Rppular • "( )()( e • ‘) l ’ iked ° ( ) ( ) C • * pretty . ( ) ( ) ( )° little . ()(.)( ."protected • „() ()"( • O O • a • * * ) live.- a ( ) ( ) ( • o # proud . ()•()( . ) lonely ( ) ( ) °( pure ("•) ( ) ( o ) lonesome" ( ) ( ) ( gueer ( ) ( .) ( ) loud ( ) ( ) ( quick ( ) ( ) ( ) loved ( ) ( ) ( quiet ( ) ( ) ( rested ' rich • right‘ rough * rushed sad safe satisfied scared scary • • selfish short. s i c k • silent • ■’ s i l l y . sleepy .•slow small . sipart soft • • • sorry • o 0 * sour special • spoiled,, • strange strong sunny sure -3- 103, Unf ( ) ( ) surprised ) ( ( ) ( ) sweet . ) ( ( ).( ) swell ( ) •(.) tall • ) . ( ( ) ( ) • • • tame ) ( ( ) ( ) terrible ) ( ( ) ( ) thankful • ) ( • ( ) (•) • • thin • • ) c ( ) (.) • thirsty # * ) ( (•) ( ) tight. # ‘ ^ • V ( ( ) ' . ( ) • • tiry . ) ( U n f ? — • ) ’#( a ) t i r e d ( ) t r a i n e d ( ) ugly . • • ( ) u n h a p p y * • ( •) u n k n o w n ( ) u s e f u l • • ( ) u s u a l (. ) v a l u a b l e ( ) • w a n t e d • * * ) w e a k ) ( )* W e l c o m e F Unf ? ( ) ( ) ( ) wild • • ( ) ( ) . ( ) willing (.) ( ) ( ) wise • • t • • ( )• ( ) ( ) . -wonderful ( ) ().(') wondering (•).() ( ) worried • • « ( ) ( ). ( ) . w o r s t •* * • . ( 1 ( > ( ) wrong. ; • • (*) ( ) . (v) ybllow ( ) ( ) i ) young • • . * o ■ • • . . : V • APPENDIX B ' ’ . . • • EXPERIMENTER-DESIGNED ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST.BOOKLET . •• • _ • Name Last * First * * 0 Grade * Today's Date Month Day Year * School_____ ’ _________ Date of Birth_____________ Month Day Year INSTRUCTIONS *T0 PUPILS: * * *• • “inside this booklet you will find a list of words. You can use many of them to describe the kind of person • * * you think you are, ■ * * You are to choose -any of the words which you feel describe you;* There are no right or wrong choices, • * You.wil*l knew almost .all of these words and what . • they mean. But, if you happen to find a word you do not know, draw E t circle around'it, and go on to the next one, * • . If the word fits you, make an X *beside the word . • : "me", like thiss * .. me XT not me___ • • If^ the word does nbti fit you, * make an X beside the . • • words. "not ’ tae", like thi&: .me * not mo. X Make your choices quickly. •» • , • Try to be honest, and bhoose those words which . * • "• *’ ' * describe you as you really arc, not as you wobld like.to bo. • • J.05 wwr:/?*',:ir-/v i L‘ . happy not mo • me * dense not mo awful.. not mo polite....... not me • tnd * i lvl • » i i « « « i » not mo V/orried........mo * not me • • • /. .weak not me * . * mo • C'OLIIOTtable . . me 9V .popular.. not me* not me • > • i t me 10. mad.......*... me not *mo 11. hoilOCt.........mo ' not wonderful. •1 3. Sell'i-sh. *.; • • • • 14.. scared.........m*; 9 • • 15 . l'lYie . , .*........me • ’16. danpcSrous.l.. me no> me* *. not me ’ not *mo not me not me * GO RIGHT ON. TO THE NEXT PAGE f i !•? & i 17. useful . . • me not mo 18. SOUr__________ me___ not me 19. lazy___________me___ not me_ 20. hated * me not me • • • ♦ 21. Sad __________mo___ not me 22o gOOd.......... me .not me t • 23." Cruel _____ me___ not me • < ” ' 24*’! careful me not me • » ■ — • • • • 25’ . interesting. . me___ not me .•• *. • • ■ /•2o. * mean.. . * me not me * ' *27 ♦ * loving........ me not'me • . * i • * 1 1 1 ■ 1 " ■ — • 281 lonesome.. . » .me not me . * — r* • . 29 « • Just. me not me • • • - ’ * 30. kindly........ me__ not me , " ** . - ' • 31 •. fall' ______ me___ not me* *32 .* pleasant..... me not me_ * / * * [ GO RIGHT ON TO THE NEXT PAGE • • • • 0 105 «V* 1 * ..«»•••»•« me sunny.......me__ • unhapo.V me_ 110 it .*•«•■«•• mo ' . V i 116 me hGlpi’ Ul.....me___ bad........... me careless...»• me •* friendly.. v me_ ♦ Sl CK. . .*...... me___ attractive.... mo__ tired *... ne_j thankful ..; mo__ lOIieX,/ «*«*«.. me able.*.......me. • 1 ' ■ 1 laughing.. . mo not me not me not me not me not me not me not mp_ not me not mo n o t m e not m6* • • • not me not not me • not me • * not me GO ftlGHT OK TO THE NEXT* PAGE. S ( i £ P . & £ g i i i f c ! M i 105 'it', 4-0. CT0 3S...... t . mo not mo 50. lying • • • no not mo_ 51. bothered. . r i Qt • ' x! • jealous......mo not mo • • JO. clllve........ mo not me — ——— • — o 54. spoiled . mo not mo 00.* bright...., ■ . . me not mu * 06 • • horrible ..... me not me_ 67. . oacic.vard... . . me not me- * • MMM^Mf MM*. 56. crdooy........mu not me * • • — ■ " ! ■ * * . 59. loved...... . mo not me « ■— ■ . 1 M M 0. 11'i^'ilt/dned . . . me not me- • M M M jl. evil.........mo_____net mo _ ’ * u5. air a id..... . me___ not mu , • eiilt®rOOi tsd. . . me ’ not me * * • . . * * ~ 64-. Cheeriul.... me not me M— M i— -* -- a APPENDIX C- * • .. * • ’ 1 PRINCIPAL STATISTICAL FORMULAS USED Ifo AN EXPERIMENT TO DETERMINE THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THE SELF-CONCEPTS • * * • . * . OF BOYS WHO' STUTTER* AND* BOYS WHO DO NOT APPENDIX C 0 • PRINCIPAL STATISTICAL FORMULAS USED IN AN EXPERIMENT TO DETERMINE THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THE SELF-CONCERTS OF BOYS WHO STUTTER AND BOYS WHO DO NOT 1 I. Homogeneity of two variances. • • SI2 = j"*}2' ni-1 * S22 = ^*22 n2-1 F = SI2 ■F 7K S2^ . where S = variance • • _ ■ 5Tx = summation of deviations from .the mean squar.ed • • • • • • • I 1 * 2 II. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. • • NS’ dxdv-S'dxS'dv r = ]/nS}2x- (5Tdx)2 i/nS’ A2y - (Sdy)2 where dx = deviation from an arbitrary origin, of . . score's ojn first test m • . dy = deviation from an arbitrary origin of . scores on second test 1Allen L. Edwafds, Statistical Methods for the Behav ioral Sciences (New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1954), p. 272. 2’ ’ • r Quinn McNemar, Psychological Statistics {.2d ed.; New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1955)» P- 119- e 108 III. t Test of the difference in the means of paired 3 samples. Sd Sxl - x2 = y n where Sxl-X2 = the standard error of the difference between the means for paired observa tions Sd = the estimate of the population stand ard deviation of the differences be tween paired observations • n = the number of pairs of observation then t - *1 ' S .• SX! - x2 0 where xi~*2 = difference between the means.*for paired observations IV*. Fiducial limits for the mearf. ^ * t = ’* ~ *1- Sx * where Xrm^ = the difference between the mean of a sample and the assumed population mean • • and Sx = the standard error of the mean V. t Test of the difference between means of two lndepen’ d-- ' 5 * ent samples. . * • * Sx-i • - Sxo • = n 4- 22^. 1 . V.»l n2 * . • % where Sx^-Sx'g = the standaM error of the difference * • between the means of two independent samples O • | •^Edwards, oj£. clt. . pp. 279“28l\ ^Ibld.. pp. 248-249- ^Ibid.. pp. 252-255- 109 O O o SI +S2 = the variances of the two samples nl+n2 = the number of subjects in each sample Xi - Xo then t = 6— Sxi - Sx^ ^1 • • • . where t = the t ratio with n-j+no-2 degrees of freedom Xt = the mean of Group 1 e 3?2 = the mean of Qroup 2 > O • • , VI. t Test of significance of difference between two means when the variances differ s i g n i f i c a n t l y * where*. S^-S^ = ' { Z + n§^ • then . t .05 = (-Sxl^) (tl)+() ( t2) • * * * Sxl^ V Sx2'^ *. • * * • * • where . Sxl* = the variahce of a sample • * . • . .' tl = the t ratio obtained by enter ing the table of t with nj-1 . degrees of freedom 6Ibid., pp. 273-274. * . *

Asset Metadata

Creator Redwine, Gerald Walter (author)

Core Title An Experimental Study Of Relationships Between Self-Concepts Of Fourth And Eighth Grade Stuttering And Non-Stuttering Boys

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Speech

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Theater

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Advisor Garwood, Victor P. (committee chair), Cannon, Wendell E. (committee member), Perkins, William H. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-25116

Unique identifier UC11356910

Identifier 5901858.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-25116 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 5901858-0.pdf

Dmrecord 25116

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights Redwine, Gerald Walter

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses