An Investigation Of The Relationship Between College Freshman Withdrawal And Certain Critical Personality And Study Orientation Factors

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 69-16,564 RUSSELL, Jack, 1926- AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLEGE FRESHMAN WITHDRAWAL AND CERTAIN CRITICAL PERSONALITY AND STUDY ORIENTATION FACTORS. University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1969 Education, psychology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLEGE FRESHMAN WITHDRAWAL AND CERTAIN CRITICAL PERSONALITY AND STUDY ORIENTATION FACTORS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education The University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by Jack Russell January 1969 This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate's Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. Date. Dean Guidance Commmtee TABLE OP CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION.............. 1 Importance of the Problem Need for the Investigation Purpose of the Study Statement of Hypotheses Relationship of Previous Research to Hypothesized Factors Limitations of the Study Cattel's Pactoral Theory of Personality Assessment Definition of Terms Organization of Remaining Chapters II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE....................... 19 An Overview Categories of College Dropout Research Personality Variables Associated with College Attrition Study Habits and Attitudes Toward Education Related to College Activities Sex as a Variable in College Attrition Age as a Variable in.College Attrition Socioeconomic Status and Family Variables Associated with College Attrition Institutional Environmental Variables In College Attrition Proposals for Reducing College Dropout Rates III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES......................... 37 Research Design Independent Variables Dependent Variables Subjects Test Administration Identification of Withdrawals The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire ii Chapter Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes IV. FINDINGS ............................ Chronological Age Hypothesis One Hypothesis Two Hypothesis Three V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. Purpose Review of the Literature Procedures Findings and Conclusions Discussion and Implications Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY............ .................... APPENDICES LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Classification of Subjects— 2x2x2 Experimental Model ....................... . 9 2. Personality and Study Orientation Variables Potentially Associated to College Withdrawal According to Previous Research. . 12 3. 2x2x2 Research Design ....................... 37 4. American Counsel on Education Survey ..... 40 5. Summary Ages of Subjects.......... 41 6. Summary of Scholastic Aptitude Test-Total Scores............ 42 7. Summary of High School Grade Point Averages. . 42 8. Frequencies of Cases According to Persistence, Aptitude and S e x ............ 43 9. Destinations of Transcripts Requested by Withdrawers............................... 45 10. 16 PF Forms A and B Mean Factoral Loadings . . 51 11. Correlations Between 16 PF and Objective Test Factors in Selected Investigations . . 55 12. Median Correlations Between 16 PF Scales and Objective Test Batteries............... 57 13. Related 16 PF Factors and Objective Test Factors................................... 58 14. Correlations of SSHA Subscales with Grade Point Averages and Academic Aptitude T e s t s ..................................... 51 15. SSHA Subscale Intercorrelations ............. 62 iv Table Page 16. F Tests Significant Beyond the .05 Level of Confidence............................... 64 17. Factors Significantly Related to Chronological Age Beyond the .05 Level of Confidence................................. 64 18. Summary of F Tests Between Combined Persister and Combined Withdrawer Scores-16 PF and SSHA . . . ......... 65 19. Difference Between Persisters and Withdrawers 16 PF E, Submissive vs Aggressive ......... 66 20. Summary of Persistence-Aptitude Interaction for 16 PF and SSHA Scores................... 69 21. Summary of Persistence-Sex Interaction for 16 PF and S S H A ....................... 71 22. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF A Reserved vs Outgoing ........................ 98 23. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF C Emotional vs Stable.......................... 99 24. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF E Humble vs Assertive........................... 100 25. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF G Expedient vs Conscientious ................ 101 26. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF F Sober vs Happy-Go-Lucky....................... 102 27. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF H Shy vs Venturesome........................... 103 28. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF I Tough-Minded vs Tender-Minded.................104 29. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF L Trusting vs Suspicious ..................... 105 30. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF M Practical vs Imaginative ...................106 v Table Page 31. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PP N Forthright vs Shrewd ...................... 107 32. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF 0 Placid vs Apprehensive.................... 108 33. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF Conservative vs Experimenting............ 109 34. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF Q2 Group-Tied vs Self-Sufficient............ 110 35. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF Q3 Casual vs Controlled ...................... Ill 36. Analysis of Covariance Summary for 16 PF Q4 Relaxed vs Tense.................... 112 37. Analysis of Covariance Summary for SSHA Study Habits............................... 113 38. Analysis of Covariance Summary for SSHA Study Attitudes........................... 114 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. 2x2x2 Experimental Model ............. .... 8 2. Relationships of Factor Structures, Questionnaire Items and Objective Tests • (Cattel, 1965)....................... 16 3. Differences Between Persisters and Withdrawers within Aptitude Groups 16 PF E, Submissive vs Aggressive.. 67 4. Differences Between Persisters and Withdrawers within Sex Groups 16 PF E, Submissive vs Aggressive.. 68 5. Differences Between Persisters and Withdrawers within Aptitude Groups 16 PF A, Reserved vs Outgoing......... 70 6. Differences Between Persisters and Withdrawers within Sex Groups 16 PF L, Trusting vs Suspicious....... 73 7. Differences Between Persisters and Withdrawers within Sex Groups 16 PF O, Confident vs Apprehensive........ 74 8. Differences Between Persisters and Withdrawers within Sex Groups 16 PF Q4, Relaxed vs High Tension Level . . 75 9. Differences Between Persisters and Withdrawers within Sex Groups SSHA Study Attitudes....................... 76 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Importance of the Problem Esty (1967:2) captured the feelings of many parents toward a college education in these words: "It's like a heavy train that takes a lot to get going and once it's moving you mustn't let it stop or it will never move again." For many students, however, the train does stop. In his criterion national census of college attrition, Iffert (1958:20) found that only 40 per cent of all college freshmen graduated from the college of their original enrollment in the prescribed four years. A thorough review of the literature led Summerskill (1962:630) to conclude that this rate of attrition has remained relatively stable over the last forty years. Iffert (1958:20) noted that 20 per cent of the students in his study completed the baccalaureate by transferring to another college or taking longer than four years in their original college. However, this leaves an estimated 40 per cent who withdrew and did not complete their college education. Four out of ten drop out. 1 The popular usage of the term "dropout" reflects the concern and negative connotations associated with college attrition. The high rate of attrition raises serious questions for the students, parents, faculty, and college administrators. The Student*s Perception of Dropping Out Wharton (1966:19) described a view that college attrition is a signal that talent and opportunity are wasted. The student who withdraws is a misfit and cannot take the pressures. Levenson (1965:9) observes that withdrawal from college is seen as forfeiting earning power and professional advancement. It is often regarded as a social tragedy. "In this view, a dropout not only fails in achievement as measured by external standards, but even more seriously, fails himself in terms of his own interests and aspirations." Parental Views of College Attrition Levenson (1966) felt that many parents interpret dropping out in terms of their own life experiences. For many a child's admission into college, particu larly a select college, represents a fulfilled dream in the fruition of years of struggle and hope. Any interruption in the smooth course of this dream shatters the image of hope created during the worthwhile years of effort. Effects of Attrition on I Faculty Morale Iffert (1964) notes that a high dropout rate must inevitably have an effect on faculty morale; this lowering of morale is likely to be perceived by students. The interaction of faculty and student awareness of high attrition may well work to the detriment of the educational experience. Administrative Concerns Summerskill (1962;628) observed three origins of college interest in attrition; (1) the perception of the American college as a training center rather than an intellectual center, (2) an increased administrative concern with efficiency brought about by the growth in size and complexity of colleges, and (3) the loss of college income associated with attrition. In a discussion of needed research on college dropouts, Knoell (1964;6-9) calls attention to the rapid increase in college enrollment and transfers and poses the following possibility; We have perhaps reached the point where the freedom of every high school graduate to choose the public college and program in which he wishes to continue his education may have to be weighed against society's ability to provide out of public funds unlimited opportunity for all without regard to their potential. 4 Need for the Investigation In spite of the vast number of investigations in the area of college dropouts, there appears to be general agreement that important questions remain unanswered. Samenow (1967:649) states: Whatever aspect of the dropout problem one wants to investigate, it is evident that a great deal of intensive field study is necessary as today's knowledge of the area is extremely primitive. Knoell (1966:69) identifies six questionable assumptions which seem to apply to much research on college attrition: 1. A static set of circumstances accounts for the stable attrition rate. 2. Everyone who enters college has the ability and motivation to graduate in four years. 3. All students who interrupt their college education are dropouts and failures. 4. Attrition is not related to academic ability. 5. Attrition is necessarily harmful to the student and the college. 6. Student characteristics related to attrition are not developed or caused by the college experience. According to Astin (1964:219-226), most studies use cross-sectional designs and are difficult to interpret. Pew use pre-college data about the student. Most use explanations from the student after he has dropped out. 1. Data should be collected longitudinally, using student input data collected prior to matriculation. This helps identify potential dropouts and assess the importance of environmental factors. 2. More consideration should be given to the use of personality variables as predictors. . . . Investi gators should also consider the possibility of tailor-made tests of personality. 3. Part of our difficulties in prediction may, in fact, be due to the heterogeneous nature of the "dropout" criterion as it is presently defined. 4. More specific information should be obtained about the student's plans at the time he enters college. . . . A detailed account of any marriage plans, anticipated financial problems, and expectations about his college would probably be useful. Williams (1967:878-879) attributes much of the contradictory findings related to personality variables and college attrition to failure to take into account the interaction of these variables with varying college environments. Knoell (1964:6-7) presented a comprehensive survey of college attrition research and suggested three major areas of research: 1. A national census type study. 2. Update the findings of Iffert's study to research into the area of the relationship between institutional characteristics and college attrition. 3. A study of critical individual characteristics as related to college withdrawals. Goetz and Leach (1967:887) conducted a questionnaire survey of 359 college persisters and withdrawers to determine differences in attitudes toward college and experiences while in college. Their findings led them to conclude that there are fewer differences between withdrawers and persisters than is generally assumed in the literature. Withdrawers being studied may have been unaware of their reasons for withdrawing or "saved face" by attributing their withdrawal to factors presented by researchers. These investigators recommend: "A longitudinal study should be made to determine background factors prior to entrance, also personality traits and their interaction with the university environment." After a thorough review of college dropout literature, Summerskill's (1962:648) recommendations for further research center on the need to understand related student characteristics and motivations: "Understanding dropouts rather than classifying them, is urgently needed." The manner in which personality factors affect college attrition remains largely unestablished according to Abel (1966:1042) . In summary, authors discussing questions needing further investigation in the area of college attrition have identified the following directions: 1. A current national census of college dropouts. 2. The influence of student personality factors. 3. Related institutional characteristics. 5. A shift of emphasis from data collected from students from time of withdrawal to student characteristics and other input data at the time of entrance into college. The present study was an attempt to meet two of these concerns by utilizing student personality and attitudinal data gathered at the time of college entrance, and focusing on critical student characteristics rather than population classification or primary dependence on data generated by students after they withdrew. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to identify personality and study orientation variables associated with early college withdrawal. In order to efficiently explore a broad spectrum of potentially related variables, the investigation utilized the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, 1967 Edition, Forms A and By and the Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes, 1965 Edition, Form C. A related purpose was to identify more specific directions for further investigation of personality and study orientation concomitants of early college withdrawal. A second related purpose was that of identifying and clarifying specific variables predicting college withdrawal for use by those who are concerned with the college attrition phenomenon. Statement of Hypotheses Three research hypotheses were posed for each dependent variable and were based on a 2x2x2 factorial experimental design (Figure 1, Table 1). PERSISTENCE PERSISTERS WITHDRAWERS W B B £ < o H & S 3 s s o CO Cell 5 HFP "Cell 6 HFW HIGH LOW Cell 1 HMP Cell 2 HMW Cell 3 LMP Cell 4 LMW Cell 8 LFW FEMALE ^*4ALE SEX Fig. 1.— 2x2x2 experimental model TABLE 1.— Classification of subjects— 2x2x2 model 9 experimental Cell (Figure Scholastic 1) Aptitude Sex Persistence 1 High Male Persisters 2 High Male Withdrawers 3 Low Male Persisters 4 Low Male Withdrawers 5 High Female Persisters 6 High Female Withdrawers 7 Low Female Persisters 8 Low Female Withdrawers 1/ 3 Combined Male Persisters 2,4 Combined Male Withdrawers 5,7 Combined Female Persisters 6,8 Combined Female Withdrawers 1,5 High Combined Persisters 2,6 High Combined Withdrawers 3,7 Low Combined Persisters 4,8 Low Combined Withdrawers 1,3,5,7 Combined Combined Persisters 2,4,6,8 Combined Combined Withdrawers 10 Null Hypotheses H0 1: Scores on 16 PF and SSHA scales do not significantly differ between persisters and withdrawers when sexes and aptitude levels are combined. Ho 2: Scores on 16 PF and SSHA scales do not significantly differ between persisters and withdrawers within high or low aptitude levels when sexes are combined. H0 3: Scores on 16 PF and SSHA scales do not significantly differ between persisters and withdrawers of each sex group when aptitude levels are combined. Dependent Variables 16 PF Factor A. Reserved versus Outgoing. 16 PF Factor C. Emotionally Less Stable versus Stable. 16 PF Factor E. Submissive versus Aggressive. 16 PF Factor F. Sober versus Happy-go-lucky. 16 PF Factor G. Expedient versus conscientious. 16 PF Factor H. Shy versus Venturesome. 16 PF Factor I. Tough-minded versus Sensitive. 16 PF Factor L. Trusting versus Suspicious. 16 PF Factor M. Practical versus Imaginative. 16 PF Factor N. Forthright versus Shrewd. 16 PF Factor 0. Self-Assured versus Apprehensive. 16 PF Factor Qi Conservative versus Experimenting. 16 PF Factor q2 Group-Dependent versus Self-Sufficient. 16 PF Factor Q3 Casual versus Controlled. 11 16 PF Factor Q4 Relaxed versus High Tension Level. SSHA Study Habits. Delay Avoidance and Work Methods. SSHA Study Attitudes. Teacher Approval and Education Acceptance. Relationship of Previous Research to Hypothesized Factors Although the null hypothesis was posed for each dependent variable, there was some evidence from previous research that many of the personality factors investigated were potentially related to college withdrawal. One reason for extreme conservatism in hypothesizing directional differences in personality factor scores was the wide diversity prevalent in naming and describing personality assessments. A summary of some studies, possibly related to 16 PF and SSHA factors is presented in Table 2. These studies are reviewed elsewhere in this investigation. Limitations of the Study Generalizations of the findings to other colleges may be limited and should be made with caution because of the confinement of data to one campus. The findings may be specific to freshmen since other levels were not included in the study. 12 TABLE 2.— Personality and study orientation variables potentially associated to college withdrawal according to previous research ♦With er itical drawer Factor Scores Withdrawer Description Reference A Outgoing Withdrawn Less Socialization Social Introversion Brown, 1966 Hill, 1966 Rose, 1966 C Stable c Change need Emotional problems Alternating moods Heilbrun, 1962 Curtis, 1965 Behan, 1966 E Dominance > Non-conforming Less Achievement via conformity Brown, 1960 Astin, 1964 G Conscientious < Irresponsible Less endurance Less self-control Less persevering Brown, 1960 Heilbrun, 1962 Astin, 1964 Daniel, 1967 H Venturesome < Withdrawn Social Introversion Brown, 1960 Rose, 1966 I Tender-minded > Femininity Dependency Dependency Astin, 1964 Trent, 1966 Rose, 1966 L Suspicious Flexibility Trustful Tolerant Astin, 1964 Daniel, 1967 Daniel, 1967 0 Apprehensive Depressed Anxiety Depression Brown, 1960 Rose, 1966 Nicholi, 1967 Ql Experimenting Less inquiring Daniel, 1967 Q2 Self-Sufficient > Non-conforming Brown, 1960 13 TABLE 2. — (Continued), Critical Factor *With- drawer scores Withdrawer Description Reference 03 Self-concept Irresponsible Less order need Less self-control Less achievement via conformity Brown, 1960 Heilbrun, 1962 Astin, 1964 Astin, 1964 SSHA Study Orientation< Less Study time Less school activities Less intellectuality Stone, 1964 Chase, 1965 Panos, 1967 *<Withdrawer scores indicated lower than persisters >Withdrawer scores indicated higher than persisters 14 Caution should be used in generalizing the findings to future freshman classes since data was limited to one freshman class. Students classified as withdrawers for purposes of this study should not be seen as having necessarily terminated their college education. Cattel*s Factoral Theory of Personality Assessment Cattel’s factor theory of personality is based on the use of factor analysis in the study of behavioral data. A factor analytic search for unitary mathematical entities is primary to this approach. The naming and describing of factors emerging from personality research may be viewed as an essentially separate task from that of mathematical identification. Cattel (1957:827-835) has proposed a numeric and alphabetic coding of psychological traits hypothesized through factor analysis as a convenient means of communication which avoids the ambiguity and differences frequently present in the art of psychological interpre tation and naming of factors. Cattel (1965:61-62) describes the three sources of psychometric data as: (1) L-data (life record), (2) Q-data (questionnaire data), (3) T-data (objective tests). L-data is defined as information which is reported by a second person and includes such items such as rating scales and marks in school. Q-data is based on 15 introspection and self report media. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and other personality inventories are examples of this type of information. The T-data, or objective data, are grounded in behavior which takes place in a standard situation, is not based on self-evaluation, and is measured in a standardized manner. Ability tests and psychogalvanomic skin response tests are examples of T-data. The hypothesized emergence of personality factors from questionnaire items and objective test variables is illustrated in Figure 2. Definition of Terms Dropout.— This term refers to college students who interrupt continuous college attendance from enrollment as freshmen to completion of the traditional four year curriculum. There is no way of determining which dropouts have terminated their college education, and which will return and successfully complete their college careers. For this reason the term "withdrawer" is frequently used in this investigation as a more accurate but less traditional reference than "dropout." 16 PF factor.— "16 PF" is a generally used abbreviation for Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. extraver s ion-intr over s ion Second Stratum Factors anxiety /// / ; .//// (Stratum) / / / / ' Factors xxxxxA BC First Order M N 0 Qi Q2 Qa x x x x x Objective Test Battery Subtests Tests 372 Questionnaire Items or Other Variables Figure 2.— Relationships of factor structures. Questionnaire items and objective tests (Cattel, 1965) 17 16 PF factor refers to a personality dimension included in the 16 PF Scales. College attrition.— This term refers to all aspects of the flow of students from college before completion of the baccalaureate. It is the generic category under which the study of college dropouts is a major classification. Personality.— The total pattern of habits, attitudes, and traits which determine a person's adjustment to his environment. References to personality in this study consider academic aptitude as a separate category. Study orientation.— This term includes certain habits and attitudes specific to college life. They include procrastination regarding academic work, characteristic methods of study, attitudes toward faculty, and attitudes toward intellectuality and educational institutions. They are assumed to be less generalized than personality traits. Negative attitudes toward professors, for example, are not assumed to necessarily indicate a generalized pattern of negative attitudes toward authority figures. Organization of Remaining Chapters Chapter II presents selected examples of college attrition research in.the areas of personality, study 18 habits and attitudes, sex, age, socioeconomic status, institutional variables, and programs for reducing college dropout rates. Chapter III includes a description of the sample, discussions of the independent variables of each sex, persistence classification, and scholastic aptitude classification as defined in this study, and the personality and study orientation variables under investigation. The research design model and statistical methods utilized are presented. This chapter also includes descriptions of the SSHA and the 16 PF along with a discussion of their validity. Tabular summaries of analysis of covariance findings are presented and described in Chapter IV. The final chapter presents an interpretive summary of the findings along with conclusions and recommendations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE After a brie£f?||^|pttary of two major reviews of college dropout literature (Summerskill, 1962; Marsh, 1966) and a consideration of several proposals for cate gorizing college dropout research, this chapter presents a review of literature pertaining to college dropouts. The multitude of investigations into college attrition made it necessary to select examples of a cross-section of college dropout research. These studies are organized under the following classifications: (1) personality, (2) study habits and attitudes, (3) sex, (4) age, (5) socioeconomic status, (6) institutional environment, (7) remedial proposals. An Overview Comprehensive reviews of college dropout literature have been reported by Summerskill (1962) and Marsh (1966). General orientation in college dropout research and an appreciation of the state of the art may be facilitated by a brief summary of their conclusions without reference to the many specific studies cited in their reviews. 19 20 Summerskill (1962:631-647) 1. Age per se does not affect attrition. 2. Sex— The attrition rates of 61 per cent for men and 59 per cent for women were not significantly different. 3. Socioeconomic factors— Research findings clearly show many socioeconomic variables to be related to college attrition. 4. Location and size of college— These variables are related to attrition but the relationship may be caused by educational and cultural characteristics. 5. Academic factors— High school grade point average and scholastic aptitude scores are related to college withdrawal rates. 6. Motivation— Motivation is clearly related to attrition, but critical experimentation in this area has been difficult. 7. Adjustment— Ten to 15 per cent of college dropouts report that personal adjustment problems are involved in early leaving of school. 8. Finances— Financial need is a variable related to college attrition. Marsh (1966;476-479) 1. The freshman year is the modal period for college attrition. 21 2. Although college, dropouts tend to score lower in high school rank and standardized tests, the broad overlap between dropouts and persisters suggests non- intellective variables as significant factors. j r ” 3. The personality and value system of the dropout: The dropout might be characterized as more rigid and fearful of change, less willing to accept the responsibilities of adult independence, lacking internalized goals and values, and somewhat of a social misfit. He also tends to be the type of person who feels easily and perhaps hopelessly defeated when faced with the prospect of possible failure or disappointment. In addition, he tends to rationalize his failings in an unrealistic manner. (1966:478) 4. The validity of studies based on stated reasons for dropping out is questioned because of the contamination of the withdrawing students, possible anxiety and "face saving" mood. 5. Predictive studies based on intellective variables have seldom reached correlations of .50 to .60, and do not account for high aptitude students who withdraw. More promising predictions appear to lie in the use of batteries of tests which include normal personality instruments and utilize complex analysis techniques. Categories of College Dropout Research Summerskill (1962:631-647), in his comprehensive review of college attrition research, found the major factors dealt with were: (1) biological and social, (2) 22 academic motivation, (3) adjustment, (4) illness and injury, and (5) finances. Those factors most frequently found to relate to college attrition were academic motivation and financial. Dalrymple (1966:9) classified college attrition studies into the following categories: (1) demographic, (2) sociological, (3) institutional, (4) psychological, (5) interaction of student characteristics, and (6) college environment. Knoell (1966:64-65) grouped college dropout studies into four types: 1. Census studies designed to establish baseline data. 2. "Autopsy" studies attempting to identify reasons for attrition by questioning students at the time of withdrawal. 3. The case study approach, often used by admission officers to make decisions. 4. Prediction studies to determine the relationship between admission variables and college success. Marsh (1966:476-479) reviewed ten years of college dropout research, and classified the literature into three categories: (1) philosophical or theoretical, (2) descriptive, and (3) predictive. 23 Philosophical and theoretical articles were described as presenting specific viewpoints and plans of attack regarding the college dropout phenomena. Descriptive studies were seen as descriptions of the dropout before, during, and as he leaves his college experience. Predictive studies attempted to find correlations of intellective and non-intellective factors with college attrition. Marsh suggested that a cause of weakness in personality inventories as predictors of attrition is their clinical orientation and recommends research with instruments dealing with socially normal problems rather than deviant personality traits. Personality Variables Associated with College Attrition In his review of college dropout literature, Marsh (1966:477-478) listed the following personality variables as having been associated with college dropouts: dependency, unreflectiveness, rigidity, anxiety, irresponsibility, impulsiveness, need for change conformity, social discomfort, valuing educational utility over intellectual activity. Brown (1960:282) investigated the personality characteristics of college dropouts by administering the 24 Minnesota Counseling Inventory to students at three colleges. His findings indicated that male dropouts tended to be irresponsible and non-conforming, and female dropouts tended to be withdrawn and depressed. A study by Heilbrun (1962:60) related female college freshmen withdrawals to certain scales developed from the Gough Adjective Check List (1955). Dropouts were higher on heterosexuality and change, and lower on achievement, order and endurance. In a study of personal and environmental factors associated with dropping out of college among 6,660, 1957 National Merit Scholarship competitors, Astin (1964: 223-225) administered the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1957) and the Inventory of Beliefs (Stern, Stein, and Bloom, 1956) to a large sample of students. Those CPI Scales significantly associated with the dropout group were lower self-control, achievement via conformity, femininity, good impression; and higher flexibility, and social presence. Inventory of Belief scores showed no significant relationship with dropping out. Curtis and Curtis (1965:16-18) administered student problem questionnaires to a random sample of 1,200 students. Questionnaire responses indicated that the 16 per cent who dropped out were more involved with ! 25 emotional problems, more concerned over academic performance, and less interested in extracurricular activities. Abel (1966:1044) found that those students who expressed certainty regarding their vocational or academic goals, and whose grade point average was below 2.0 at the end of their freshman year were less likely to graduate than other students. The Center for the Study of Higher Education conducted a five year follow-up study of 10,000 high school graduates from sixteen communities (Trent, 1966: 38-44). Student responses to questionnaires and the Omnibus Personality Inventory indicate that college withdrawal is related to dependence, less orientation toward intellectual activities, and having parents who are less loving, energetic, and ambitious. Hill (1966:166-173) found college withdrawers to be lower in certain creativity factors than those who went on to graduate. Male dropouts were lower in originality, spontaneous flexibility, and ideational fluency. Both male and female withdrawers were lower in sensitivity to problems. California Psychological Inventory factors associated with withdrawal were lower independent achievement for women and lower socialization and intellectual efficiency for men. Behan (1966:305-308) 26 tested the ability of psychiatric questions on a university's preadmission medical history form to identify potential dropouts. Six such questions were asked of 2,500 State University of New York at Buffalo students. At the end of one year, one question was associated with withdrawal; students who said they experienced alternating moods of gloom and cheerfulness were more likely than others to have withdrawn. An administration of the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank and the Omnibus Personality Inventory by Rose (1966:242-245) to 195 University of Kentucky students, showed students withdrawing within one semester to be high in social introversion, and less dependent than persisters. Subjects who dropped out after the first semester were higher in hostility, anxiety, and dependency. In a study of 1,400 Harvard dropouts, Nicholi (1967:155-158) found that 38 per cent of the withdrawers consulted a psychiatrist before leaving college, and psychiatric consultation was four times as frequent among dropouts as among the total student population. Depression was judged to be the most significant causal factor in the decision to withdraw. This depression was interpreted as arising from the perceived disparity between the ideal self and the real self as one of thousands of students in a threatening environment. 27 Cross (1967:2-3) summarized findings of research at three colleges indicating that students who scored high in Theoretical and Aesthetic, and low in Economic and Religious on the Allport, Vernon, and Lindsay Study of Values, withdrew from college more frequently than others. Ashbrook (1967:171-174) found notdifferences on Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory scales between students who graduated and students who failed to graduate from a small protestant interdenominational seminary. Daniel (1967:230-235) studied 1,200 freshmen by dividing them into persisters, dropouts in good standing, and dropouts due to poor scholarship; and compared scores on the School and College Ability Tests, the Gordon Personal Profile, and the Gordon Personal Inventory. High aptitude, low scholarship dropouts rated themselves as more trustful, tolerant, energetic, vigorous, and calm and collected. High aptitude, high scholarship dropouts rated themselves as less persevering and inquiring than persisters. The MMPI was administered by Ashbrook (1967:171- 174), to 170 men and women at a small interdenominational seminary, half dropouts and half persisters. None of the scales, taken individually, differentiated. Combining sexes and socioeconomic levels might have masked differences. 28 Study Habits and Attitudes Toward Education Related to College Attrition There is evidence throughout the literature that study habits and attitudes toward education are critical factors in early withdrawal from college. A study by Stone and Ryan (1964:188-189) of self-reports by 1,500 freshmen at Kansas State University showed that those students, who reported studying fewer nights per week in high school, withdrew from college before their sophomore year more frequently than their counterparts. Responses to a questionnaire by Astin (1964:222) from 535 college dropouts showed 51 per cent of the males indicating, "I was tired of being a student," and 31 per cent of the females indicating, "College was not relevant to my goals." Chase (1965:1-36) in an investigation of first semester dropouts at Indiana University concluded that his sample had a history of high school activities which was less oriented around the school. Curtis (1965:16-18) administered student problem questionnaires to a random sample of 1,200 students. Responses from the 16 per cent who dropped out showed these students to be less interested in extracurricular activities. In Trent's (1966:38-39) study of student development, college dropouts valued education as a means 29 of developing vocational skills more than as a process for the acquisition of knowledge and ideas according to their lower intellectuality scores on the Omnibus Personality Inventory. This primacy of vocational objective may account for Abel*s (1966:1044) finding that students who expressed certainty regarding their vocational or academic goals, and whose grade point average was below 2.0 at the end of their freshman year were less likely to graduate than other students. Dole (1966:4-7) found that withdrawing women in arts and sciences gave conforming reasons for attending college while their male counterparts expressed dislike for verbal activities, and placed little emphasis on certain academic values. Panos and Astin (1967:9-14) examined the relation ship of both student characteristics and environmental variables to college attrition in a four year follow-up study of 36,000 students in 246 colleges. Students who withdrew had lower levels of educational aspiration and aspired to practically-oriented occupations. Sex as a Variable in College Attrition * The overall attrition fates of 61 per cent for men and 59 per cent for women as estimated by Iffert (1958:17) do not appear to be significantly different. There is evidence, however, that other factors associated with 30 college withdrawal may interact significantly with the sex variable. According to Minnesota Counseling Inventory scales, Brown (1960:281) found male dropouts to score as more irresponsible and non-conforming while female dropouts responded as more withdrawn and depressed. Astin (1964:229) assessed the effect of fifteen college environment variables on withdrawal from college. None of the variables as measured by the Environmental Assessment Technique were significant factors in male college withdrawal rates. Five of the environmental variables were significantly associated with female withdrawal rates. Hill (1966:166-173) found sex differences to be an important variable among college dropouts on the California Psychological Inventory. Female dropouts scored lower on the independent achievement scale, while male dropouts scored lower on social evasion and intellectual efficiency. Reasons given by withdrawing students in Dole's (1966:4-7) study of 100 University of Hawaii students varied according to sex with women giving conforming reasons for withdrawing, and men de-emphasizing academic values and expressing dislike for verbal activities. In his census of college dropouts, Iffert (1958:92) found significant differences between sexes in reasons for 31 withdrawing given by students. In order of frequency, reasons given by men were: (1) enlisted in military service, (2) lacked interest in studies, (3) financial (self), (4) discouraged by low grades, (5) military service (drafted), (6) financial (family). Reasons for women were: (1) planned to be married soon, (2) took a full time job, (3) financial (self), (4) financial (family), (5) lacked interest in studies, (6) discouraged by low grades. A study by Hill (1966:166-173) showed that among 700 students at the University of Texas, more women than men withdrew voluntarily, and more men than women were required to leave for academic failure. Age as a Variable in College Attrition Summerskill (1962:631) concludes from his review of literature that age per se does not affect attrition. There is some evidence, however, to suspect that age can be a significant variable in college withdrawal rates. Newman (1965:16) conducted a.five year follow-up study of 548 University of Chicago freshmen. Of the seventeen students who were older than nineteen years at the time of entrance, sixteen had withdrawn, compared to 40 per cent of the total group. Students who were older and had parents with lower educational levels withdrew from college more frequently 32 than others according to Chase's (1965:13-14) study of first semester freshmen dropouts at Indiana University. Socioeconomic Status and Family Variables Associated with College Attrition National Merit Scholarship dropouts in Astin's study (1964:223) came from relatively lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Predicting the dropout group at the .001 level for both sexes were mother's education, father*s education, father's occupation, and number of peers attending college. The number of books in the home did not predict. In their study of 36,000 students in 246 colleges, Panos and Astin (1967:9-14) found that students who dropped out of college were more frequently from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than students who persisted. By means of a questionnaire administered at freshman registration to 2,900 entering students, Chase (1965: 13-14) determined that the seventy-five freshmen who dropped out during their first semester had parents with lower educational levels than their persisting counter parts. The significance of several socioeconomic status variables in college attrition disappeared when Barger and Hall (1965:501-508) controlled for academic aptitude in a study of 3,600 University of Florida freshmen. They S 33 divided their population into high, medium, and low academic aptitude levels, and investigated the relationship of parents' marital status, family income, father's education, father's occupation, religious preferences, ordinal position, and family size to college attrition. The only interaction which was significant for dropping out of college was for both sexes in the high aptitude classification who were from broken homes. Institutional Environmental Variables in College Attrition Nelson (1966:1050) investigated the relationship of twenty-two variables to college attrition in 100 four year institutions with low freshman withdrawal rates and 100 institutions with higher withdrawal rates. Fifteen variables discriminated between the two groups. These variables were grouped into the following categories: 1. Masculinity— High attrition colleges had a higher proportion of male students and characteristics. 2. Selectivity— High attrition colleges had more liberal admissions policies. 3. Size— Large institutions and institutions located in large communities tended to have a higher attrition rate. 4. Affluence— Higher attrition was associated with lower expense requirements, lower faculty-student ratios, 34 and lower faculty and facility resources. In a study of National Merit Scholarship students in 120 colleges, Astin (1964:225) assessed the relation ship of fifteen institutional variables with college attrition. None were significant for male dropouts. It was found, however, that female students withdrew more frequently from colleges with the following charac teristics: 1. Conventional orientation, that is, less social and artistic orientations. 2. Higher percentage of men in the student body. 3. Coeducational student bodies. 4. Greater affluence. 5. Private sponsorship. Astin explained the influence of environmental variables on women rather than men by hypothesizing that men leave college for internal reasons, while women are more susceptible to external influences. The higher withdrawal rate from coeducational colleges and colleges with a higher percentage of male students might be explained by the presence of more opportunities for marriage before completion of the baccalaureate program. 35 Proposals for Reducing College Dropout Rates Proposals for the reduction of college dropout rates frequently center around two approaches. First, preventative, compensatory services to students who have enrolled in college. Second, temporary alternatives to the college experience. Examples of research regarding preventative services will be presented. There is no research available on the effectiveness of temporary alternatives to college attendance. However, because of its frequent mention in the literature, examples of proposals for this approach are included. Preventative Programs Smith (1963:168-159) investigated the effectiveness of a series of small group meetings with freshmen in reducing the frequency of college withdrawal. Sixteen per cent of seventy-six freshmen participating in small group discussions withdrew, compared to 24 per cent of an equal number of freshmen in a control group. Sixty male freshmen at the University of Kentucky were identified by Rose (1965:400) as potential withdrawers. Half were required to have counseling; the other half had no counseling. None of the counseled group withdrew while five members of the non-counseled group withdrew. 36 Marks, and others (1966:74-77) found that students who failed to change their majors when counselors strongly recommended such a change were more likely to withdraw. Proposals for Temporary Alternatives to College Attendance Dalrymple (1967:13) refers to the large percentage of college dropouts who eventually return and graduate, and suggests that dropping out of college, unlike dropping out of high school, is frequently a valuable experience. He points to the inflexibility of the American education time schedule as a major cause of college attrition. Dalrymple (1967:13) feels that the traditional time for entering college is inappropriate for many students, . . . a n d proposes: . . . an organized institutionalized program of discontinuous education— an orderly, approved formal method for the high school senior to obtain a place in a college class one, two, or three years after his high school graduation. Shriver (1964:1) recommends a meaningful non- academic interlude between high school graduation and completion of college: If the college sophomore wants to drop out of school, let him. Let the bored or the confused or the burned-out undergraduates have a short meaningful interlude— a sojourn in reality— for a year, or two years, so that he can come back revitalized, committed, concerned enough to finish both college and graduate school. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Research Design The study was based on a three factor 2x2x2 factorial design (Table 3). The three factors and corresponding application levels were as follows: 1. Persistence; persisters and withdrawers. 2. Scholastic aptitude; high and low. 3. Sex; male and female. TABLE 3.t-2x2x2 research design Persisters (A): Persisters (Ai) Withdrawers (A2) Sex (C) : M (Cx) F (C2) M (Ci) F (C2) High (Bx) A1B1C1 a1b1c2 a2b1c1 A2b1c2 Scholastic Aptitude (B) Low (B2) a1b2ci a1b2C2 A2B2C1 A2B2C2 The effect of age was taken into account through analysis of covariance. 37 38 Independent Variables Sex Sex was treated as a classification variable. The literature indicates sex per se has not been critical in college withdrawal rates. However, there is evidence that some non-intellective variables become critical in college withdrawal when interaction with the sex variable is considered (Brown, 1960; Dole, 1966; Hill, 1966). Scholastic Aptitude Scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, Total and the American College Test, Composite were designated as scholastic aptitude criteria. SAT scores were available for 80 per cent of the subjects. ACT scores were available for the remaining 20 per cent. Parsimonious aptitude data was achieved by converting ACT scores to corresponding SAT scores according to the Table of Equivalency in the California State Colleges Admissions Table for Out of State High School Graduates (1966). There is evidence that some personality and attitudinal variables interact significantly with intellective variables (Abel, 1966; Daniel, 1967). Two levels of classification within the scholastic * aptitude variable were generated by designating SAT 39 scores at or above population median as high aptitude, and scores below median as low aptitude. Persistence The persistence dimension was divided into two classification levels referred to as persisters and withdrawers. Persisters were defined as all subjects who completed their first year of college without interruption. All students who did not complete their freshman year at this college were classified as withdrawers. Age In order to further control for variables other than personality, study habits, and study attitudes, chronological age at time of freshman enrollment was treated as a covariate. Dependent Variables Personality Variables Scores from the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, 1967 Edition, Forms A and B, were treated, one at a time, as dependent variables. The 16 PF yields scores for sixteen primary factors. One of the sixteen primary factors is a measure of intelligence and was not considered in this study. 40 Study Habits and Attitudes Scores from the Brown, Holtzman Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes, College Form, 1965 Edition were used as criteria of study habits and attitudes. Subjects Socioeconomic Status Profile All subjects were members of the 1967 freshman class at California State College, Fullerton. Responses of this class to the American Counsel on Education Survey provide information regarding the following socioeconomic status characteristics: TABLE 4.— American Counsel on Education Survey Item Per Cent of Subjects Caucasian 97 Father attended college 58 Mother attended college 54 Parents' income $10,000+ 62 $ 8,000+ 73 $ 3,000- 2 Modest or no financial need 95 Plans for financing college Savings or work 35 t- ( Parents 58 Loan 4 Financial aid 8 High school activity President of school organization 23 Member of high school honor society 45 41 In general, the population described itself as predominantly Caucasian, middle class, coming from well educated families, and having academically oriented high school careers. Age The population age was young and homogeneous with a mean chronological age of eighteen years and three months and 98 per cent of the population in the seventeen and eighteen year age range (Table 5). TABLE 5.— Summary ages of subjects Frequency Years of Age 1 21 1 20 15 19 710 18 191 17 3 16 Mean 18.27 SD .37 Scholastic Aptitude A summary of Scholastic Aptitude Test-Total scores for the population shows a mean score of 1,036 and a median of 1,040 (Table 6). Table 7 presents a summary of the population's high school grade point averages. 42 TABLE 6.— Summary of Scholastic Aptitude Test-Total scores Frequency Score 15 1,350-1,428 46 1,250-1,349 128 1,150-1,249 218 1,050-1,149 276 950-1,049 140 850- 949 78 750- 849 10 682- 749 Mean 1,036.07 Median 1,040 SD 136.56 TABLE 7.— Summary of high school grade point averages Frequency GPA 31 3.80-4.00 103 3.50-3.79 183 3.20-3.49 318 3.90-3.19 233 2.60-2.89 51 2.31-2.59 Mean 3.09 SD .35 Delimitation of Population The study was limited to full time freshmen who were entering college for the first time. A full time academic load was defined as twelve or more units. The defined freshman class included 930 students. Ten students were not included in the study because of missing 16 PP and SSHA data. Of the remaining 920 students comprising the research population, eighteen did not complete the 16 PP. The 920 students were comprised of 409 males and 511 females. A total of 104 students, thirty-six males and sixty-eight females, withdrew before the completion of their freshman year. Table 8 presents a summary of the distribution of subjects in terms of the three factor design used in this study. TABLE 8.— Frequencies of cases according to persistence, aptitude and sex Persistence Persisters Withdrawers Sex M F M F Scholastic Aptitude High 234 188 18 20 Low 139 255 18 48 Test Administration ' Completion of the 16 PF and SSHA was required as part of the registration process. -Students completed the tests under faculty supervision in scheduled groups of about forty. Procedures and directions for test administration were standardized and based on test publishers* specifications. Students were told the tests were being 44 administered for unspecified research purposes, and assured of confidential treatment of their scores (Appendix A). Identification of Withdrawals Freshmen withdrawing during the course of a semester were asked to come to the student counseling center for a brief interview. Withdrawal interviews were conducted by the six members of the counseling staff, with twenty subjects. During these interviews, the profes sional counseling staff attempted to identify reasons for withdrawal and classify these reasons as presenting reasons, reasons of great importance, or reasons of moderate importance. Plans for future college attendance were also determined (Appendix B). The difficulty in determining reasons for withdrawal through questionnaires or other techniques is indicated by the finding that in seven out of twenty interviews the primary reason for withdrawal was judged at the completion of the interview to be different from the reason presented by the student at the beginning of the interview. The result of this exploratory study supported the decision to classify all twenty interviewees, together with the remaining eighty-four withdrawers who were not interviewed, as withdrawers for purposes of this study. 45 Involuntary academic suspension was not a factor in this study because students are so suspended at this institution only after the completion of two consecutive semesters of probationary work. Transcripts Requested An indication of the immediate educational plans of the withdrawing students was obtained by examining the destinations of transcripts of college work requested by them. By October of the year following their enrollment as Freshmen, only 12 per cent had requested transcripts to be sent to another four year institution. Twenty-eight per cent had asked for transcripts to be sent to a local junior college, while 60 per cent had requested no transcripts (Table 9). TABLE 9.— Destinations of transcripts requested by withdrawers Transcript Destination Frequency Local junior colleges 29 Four year colleges 13 None 62 Total 104 Statistical Analysis In keeping with the 2x2x2 design with one covariate and unequal cell values, each of the seventeen dependent variables was submitted to analysis of covariance. Data was processed through the BMD0V5 Program at the University of Southern California Computor Sciences Laboratory. Sums of squares, degrees of freedom, and mean squares were determined for the following sources of variance: persistence, sex, aptitude, persistence-sex-interaction, persistence-aptitude interaction, sex-aptitude interaction, persistence-sex-aptitude interaction, and error. Variance ratios were determined for each source of variance and P Tests were evaluated for the following variance sources: persistence, persistence-sex inter action, and persistence-aptitude interaction. The null hypothesis was rejected when the value of P was significant at the .05 level for a two-tailed test. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire The 16 PP represents an attempt to assess basic personality traits through a standardized inventory. The test is oriented toward the measurement of normal personality. First Order Personality Factor Descriptions (Cattel, 1965) Factor A+. outgoing.— A source trait influencing outgoing, warm-hearted, easy-going, participating behavior. Factor A-, reserved.— The opposite end of the affectothymic dimension, characterized by reserved, cool, detached behavior. Factor C+. stable, high ego strength.— A source trait showing itself in good emotional stability and capacity to cope with emotional difficulties. Factor C-. emotional, low ego strength.— That pole of the C trait which manifests itself in being easily upset and moody. Factor E+, aggressive, dominance.— A source trait shown in assertive, independent, confident, and stubborn behavior. Factor E-. submissiveness, humble.— The opposite end of the dominance dimension, characterized by unsure, modest, meek behavior. Factor F+. happy-go-lucky, surgency.— A source trait of heedless, gay, uninhibited and enthusiastic behavior. 48 Factor F-. sober, desurgency.— A trait of prudent, serious and taciturn behavior. Factor G+. conscientious, high super-ego.— A source trait governing persevering, unselfish behavior and impelling the individual to duty as conceived by his culture. Factor G-. expedient, low super-ego.— A source trait marked by behavior which is fickle, frivolous, and neglectful of social chores. Factor H+, venturesome.— Parmia is an acronym from "parasympathetic immunity to threat" believed to underly the behavior of boldness, spontaneity and insusceptibility to inhibition. Factor H-, shy.— A source trait characterized by restraint, diffidence, timidity and a high responsiveness to threat. Factor I+. tough-minded.— Harria is an acronym for hard realism. A trait characterized by realism, toughness and self reliance. Factor I-, tender-minded.— Premsia is an acronym to designate the theoretical source (protected emotional sensitivity) of the tender-minded, dependent, sensitive behavior of this behavior pattern. 49 Factor L+, suspicious.— A source trait of self- opinionated, skeptical, jealous and suspicious behavior, designated in its more abnormal forms as paranoid, but essentially an inner tension accompanied by strong tendencies to projection from which, too, the name is derived. Factor L-, trusting.— The opposite end of the suspicious dimension. Characterized as adaptable, free of jealousy, easy to get along with. Factor M+, imaginative.— A trait of general tendency to be autistic, i.e., to perceive reality falsely as in accord with one’s wishes. Also wrapped up in inner imaginative developments, bohemian, careless of practicalities. Factor M-, practical.— The opposite of autiay a pattern of practical, careful, conventional behavior. Factor N+, shrewd.— A source trait of behavior described as calculating, worldly, penetrating. Factor N-. artlessness, forthright.— The opposite of shrewdness. A pattern of natural, artless, sentimental behavior. Factor 0+. apprehensive, guilt-proneness.— A source trait distinct from super-ego strength, but predisposing to guilt-prone, depressive, apprehensive behavior. Factor 0-, placid, assurance.— A source trait characterized as self-assured, confident, serene. Factor Qj + , experimenting, radicalism.— A trait characterized as critical, liberal, analytical, and free- thinking . Factor Qj-, conservative, conservatism.— A trait characterized as respecting established ideas, tolerant of traditional difficulties. Factor Q2+> self-sufficient, self-sufficiency.— A trait manifesting itself as individualistic, resourceful, prefers to make own decisions. Factor Qg-, group-tied, group adherence.— A source trait underlying a tendency to live with the group: characterized as a joiner and a good follower. Factor Q3+, controlled, high self-concept.— This source trait is characterized as socially precise, self- disciplined, and compulsive. 51 Factor Q3-, casual, low integration.— This source trait is characterized as careless of protocol, untidy, following urges. Factor Q4+, tense.— This trait is characterized as driven, overwrought and fretful. Factor Q4-, relaxed.--A trait described as tranquil, torpid. Factoral Validity Since the personality traits measured by the 16 PF are initially statistically identified by means of factor analysis, they are basically referred to by index letters and secondarily described verbally. Cattel (1962:4) reports the mean validity of Forms A and B of the 16 PF from factor loadings for each first order factor as follows (Table 10). TABLE 10.— 16 PF forms A and B mean factoral loadings Factor Validity • Factor__________Validity A 0.88 M 0.74. C.— 0.76 N 0.73 E 0.82 O 0.91 F 0.91 Q-, 0.74 G 0.85 Q2 0.81 H 0.96 Q3 0.92 I 0.84 Qa 0.96 L 0.89 52 Critical Reviews Critical reviews of the 16 PF call attention to several important considerations in the evaluation of this instrument. Lorr (1965:175) points to the need for more information in the areas of norm groups, test-retest stability, factor internal consistency and criterion validity. Although Lorr views the 16 PF as a research instrument, he also views it as the best factor-based personality inventory available. In a study of 16 PF interitem correlations, Levonian (1961:389-396) found only 183 intrafactor correlations among 1,612 significant interitem correlations. Thirty per cent of the items had no significant interitem correla tions. Becker (1961:393-404) questioned the independence of the 16 factor scales. In a factor analytic study of the 16 PF he found only eight independent scales. Critical reviews of the 1967 revision of the 16 PF are not yet available. A primary purpose of this revision was to increase intrafactor consistency. 1-Mary Cattell, Director, Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, private telephone interview, Champaigne, Illinois, July, 1967. 53 Objective Test Validity Evidence Some indication of 16 PP validity may be obtained by examining factor analytic studies in which both objective tests and the 16 PP were used. After a brief description of certain of these studies, significant correlations between 16 PP factors and objective test factors will be summarized (Table 11). Cattel (1955).— The 16 PF and a battery of objective tests were administered to 500 Air Force students in basic pilot training. The purpose of the study was to develop a psychiatric screening instrument. Rosenthal (1955).— In a factor analytic study of anxiety variables, the 16 PF and an objective battery were administered to seventy male college students. Scheirer (1958).— A purpose of this study was to investigate the correlations between objective test factors and 16 PP factors. Eight of the 16 PF Questionnaire fac tors and a battery of objective tests were administered to eighty-six male college undergraduates. Cattel (1959).— This study investigated the meaning of certain objective test factors. The entire 16 PF and an objective test battery were administered to the population used in the previous study. 54 Cattel (1958).— This was a study of the difference scores in the sixty-nine variables which the two previous studies had in common. Hundlebv (1965) .— The 16 PF and an objective test battery were administered to fifty-six institutionalized criminals and 112 normal college undergraduates in a factor analytic study of personality variables. Horn (1961).— In a factor analytic study of personality variables thirty-three male college students, fifty-three Air Force personnel, and fifty-one institutionalized criminals were administered the 16 PF and a battery of objective tests. Table 12 presents a summary of correlations between 16 PF factors and objective test factors found in the above seven studies which seem substantial enough to shed some light on the meaning of the 16 PF factors. Table 13 presents the verbal names of those factors in which stable correlational relationships were suggested in these studies. In each case the letter name and verbal name of the 16 PF factor appears first and is followed by the numerical index and verbal names of the associated objective test factors. f i TABLE 11.— Correlations between 16 PF and objective test factors in selected investigations 16 PF Factor Objective Test Index I n v e s t i q a t i o n Cattel 1955 Rosenthal 1955 Sheirer 1958 Cattel 1959 Cattel 1958 Hundleby 1965 Horn 1961 7V 32 .39 .53 .50 .07 A 34 -.13 -.22 22 .15 .15 .08 c 24 -.56 -.46 -.48 -.29 -.23 -.57 -.15 34 .21 -.02 -.01 T i 1 32 .46 .16 .11 £ l 33 -.18 32 .46 .11 .10 .12 r 35 .12 .23 .17 19 .11 .23 .02 -.13 .23 H 24 -.33 -.36 .04 -.23 -.09 32 .43 .16 .39 i 09 16 -.35 -.25 -.05 .08 X 22 .05 -.15 -.05 -.36 24 .54 .15 .52 .17 L 28 .15 .03 .11 .21 U1 Ul TABLE 11.— (Continued) 16 PF Factor Objective Test Index I n v e s t i g a t i o n Cattel 1955 Rosenthal 1955 Sheirer 1958 Cattel 1959 Cattel 1958 Hundleby 1965 Horn 1961 26 .46 .24 .14 .04 .11 -.18 34 .45 .40 .20 22 .03 .23 N 30 -.28 -.17 .03 32 .16 .21 -.05 0 24 . 66 .84 .32 .30 .02 .12 .58 q2 32 -.25 -.41 -.06 24 -.60 -.53 -.08 -.56 Q3 33 -.19 22 -.04 -.27 .03 -.15 -.10 q4 24 .74 .70 .61 .50 .40 .13 .65 28 -.17 .26 .24 .14 .01 cn a\ 57 TABLE 12.— Median correlations between 16 PF scales and objective test batteries 16 PF Objective Test Index Factors 16 19 22 24 26 28 30 32 33 34 35 A C E .15 .46 .45 .16 -.18 -.18 F H I .15 .11 -.10 -.23 -.09 .12 .28 .17 L M N .13 .35 .13 .13 -.17 .16 .40 0 Q2 Q3 q4 -.10 .32 -.55 .61 .14 -.25 -.19 58 TABLE 13.--Related 16 PP factors and objective test factors 16 PF Test Objective Test Factors Index Name Index Name A Reserved vs Outgoing 32 34 Introversion vs Extraversion Impracticalness vs Practicalness C Emotional vs Stable 24 22 Anxiety vs Adjustment Low Cortical Alertness vs High Cortical Alertness E Submissiveness vs Dominance 33 32 Pessimism vs Sanguine Poise Introversion vs Extraversion F Sober vs Happy-go-lucky 35 Somnolence vs Excitation H Shy vs Venturesome 32 24 19 Introversion vs Extraversion Anxiety vs Adjustment Subduedness vs Promethean Will I Tough-minded vs 16 Tender-minded 22 Disciplined Unassertiveness vs Narcissistic Ego Cortical Alertness vs Athemia L Trusting vs Suspicious 24 28 Adjustment vs Anxiety Dependent vs Undisciplined Self-Assuredness M Practical vs Imaginative 34 26 Practicalness vs Impracticalness Home-Spunness vs Self-Realization N Forthright, vs Shrewd 30 32 22 Association of Frustration vs Mature Stolidness Extraversion vs Introversion Cortical Alertness vs Athemia 0 Placid vs Apprehensive 24 Adjustment vs Anxiety $2 Dependent vs 32 Self-Sufficient Extraversion vs Introversion 03 Casual vs Controlled 24 33 Adjustment vs Anxiety Sanguine Poise vs Pessimism TABLE 13.— (Continued) 59 16 PF Test Objective Test Factors index Name : index Name Relaxed vs 28 Dependent vs Undisciplined Tense Self-Assuredness 60 Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes Description of Scales (Brown. 1966:9) DA-Delay Avoidance.— Promptness in completing academic assignments, lack of procrastination, and freedom from wasteful delay and distraction. WM-Work Methods.— Use of effective study procedures, efficiency in doing academic assignments, and how-to-study skills. TA-Teacher Approval.— Opinions of teachers and their classroom behavior and methods. EA-Education Acceptance.— Approval of educational objectives, practices, and requirements. SH-Study Habits.— Combines the scores on the DA and WM scales to provide a measure of academic behavior. SA-Study Attitudes.— Combines the scores on the TA and EA scales to provide a measure of scholastic beliefs. SO-Study Orientation.— Combines the scores on the SH and SA scales to provide an overall measure of study habits and attitudes. Validity The value of the SSHA as an instrument for studying attributes related to college success is contingent on 61 validity coefficients between SSHA scores and college success criterial being higher than validity coefficients between SSHA scores and tests of academic aptitude. In a study of 1,772 freshmen at six colleges, Brown (1966:11) found significantly higher correlations between three of the four SSHA subscales and first semester grade point average, than academic aptitude test scores (Table 14). TABLE 14.— Correlations of SSHA subscales with grade point averages and academic aptitude tests SSHA Subscale Grade Point Average Academic Aptitude Tests Delay Avoidance .31 .08 Work Methods .32 .30 Teacher Approval .25 .16 Education Approval .35 .14 Total .36 .21 Table 15 reports subscale intercorrelations for 3,054 SSHA college freshmen scores (Brown, 1966:12). The intercorrelations indicate overlap in meaning among the subscales. Justification in grouping the subscales under the two classifications of Study Habits and Study Attitudes is suggested with the highest correlations existing between the two Study Habits scales and the two Study Attitudes scales. 62 TABLE 15.— SSHA subscale intercorrelations SSHA Delay Subscale Avoidance Work Methods Teacher Approval Education Acceptance Delay Avoidance .70 .49 .65 Work Methods .53 .62 Teacher Approval .69 Education Acceptance CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This chapter presents a' summary of findings of the statistical analysis of the data utilized in this study. The findings are presented in three sections according to the three research hypotheses stated in Chapter I. Detailed analysis of covariance tables for all dependent variables are included in Appendix C. Scores from seventeen 16 PF and SSHA scales were treated by analysis of covariance according to a 2x2x2 factorial design using chronological age as the covariate. F Tests for the main effect of persistence and the first order interactions of persistence with aptitude and persistence with sex were considered. This amounted to three tests of significance for each of seventeen variables or a total of fifty-one tests. Five per cent of these, or 2.5, might be expected to exceed the .05 level of confidence by chance. Five tests actually exceeded this confidence level with a mean significance exceeding the .01 level of confidence (Table 16). 63 64 TABLE 16.— P Tests significant beyond the .05 level of confidence Factor P .... z Significance 16 PP A 5.45 2.33 .02 16 PP E 4.34 2.08 .04 16 PF L 12.77 3.57 .0004 16 PP 0 6.76 2.60 .01 16 PF Q4 5.72 2.39 .02 Mean 2.59 .01 Chronological Age The: covariate, chronological age was related significantly beyond the .05 level of confidence to four dependent variables (Table 17). TABLE 17.--Factors significantly related to chronological age beyond the .05 level of confidence Pactor P Significance 16 PP C 4.04 4 .05 16 PP 0 9.72 . * .01 16 PP Q3 11.07 4 .001 16 PP Q4 5.65 4.05 The mean age of persisters was 18.26 years and the mean age of withdrawers was 18.32 years. The difference of .06 years was too small to be significantly related to persistence. 65 Hypothesis One i Hq 1: Scores on 16 PF and SSHA scales do not significantly differ between persisters and withdrawers when sexes and aptitude levels are combined. Tests of differences between persisters and withdrawers on each scale are presented in Table 18. TABLE 18.--Summary of F Tests between combined persister and combined withdrawer scores-16 PF and SSHA Scale F 16 PF A Reserved vs Outgoing .71 16 PF C Emotionally Less Stable vs Stable .01 16 PF E Submissive vs Aggressive 4.34* 16 PF F Sober vs Happy-go-lucky .92 16 PF 6 Expedient vs Conscientious 2.96 16 PF H Shy vs Venturesome 1.75 16 PF I Tough-minded vs Sensitive .07 16 PF L Trusting vs Suspicious .62 16 PF M Practical vs Imaginative .53 16 PF N Forthright vs Shrewd .09 16 PF 0 Self-Assured vs Apprehensive .48 16 PF' Qi Conservative vs Experimenting .02 16 PF Q2 Group-Dependent vs Self-Sufficient .28 16 PF Q3 Casual vs Controlled .32 16 PF q4 Relaxed vs High Tension Level .96 SSHA Study Habits .12 SSHA Study Attitudes 1.99 * p < 4. .05 66 HQ1 failed to be rejected at the .05 level for 16 PF A, C, F, G, H, I, L, M, N, 0, Qx , Q2 , Q3 , Q 4 , SSHA Study Habits, and SSHA Study Attitudes. 16 PF E, Submissive versus Aggressive H01 was rejected at the .05 level of confidence for 16 PF E, Submissive versus Aggressive. Scores on 16 PF E were significantly higher for the withdrawer group (Table 19). TABLE 19.— Difference between persisters and withdrawers 16 PF E, Submissive vs Aggressive Adjusted Mean Scores . F Significance Persisters Withdrawers Difference 24.93 25.83 .90 4.34 <.05 As a matter of interest, 16 PF E differences within sex categories and aptitude categories are displayed in Figures 3 and 4. Higher 16 PF E scores are shown for high aptitude withdrawers and female withdrawers. 67 Aptitude Adjusted Mean scores F Signif Persisters Withdrawers Difference icance High Low 25.88 28.17 2.29 23.94 24.30 .36 2.89 .14 < .10 >.25 AGGRESSIVE 29 28 HIGH APTITUDE 27 16 PP E SCORES 26 25 TOW APTITUDE 24 23 SUBMISSIVE PERSISTERS WITHDRAWERS Pig. 3.— Differences between persisters and withdrawers within aptitude groups— 16 PF E, Submissive vs Aggressive 68 Sex Adjusted Mean Scores F Signif icance Persisters Withdrawers Difference Male Female 28.08 28.77 .65 22.32 24.24 1.92 .29 4.12 7.25 <.05 AGGRESSIVE 29 MALES 28 27 16 PF E SCORES 26 25 24 FEMALES 23 SUBMISSIVE WITHDRAWERS PERSISTERS Fig. 4.— Differences between persisters and withdrawers within sex groups— 16 PF E, Submissive vs Aggressive 69 Hypothesis Two Hq 2: Scores on 16 PF and SSHA scales do not significantly differ between persisters and withdrawers within high or low aptitude levels when sexes are combined. TABLE 20.— Summary of persistence-aptitude interaction for 16 PF and SSHA scores Scale F 16 16 PF PF A C Reserved vs Outgoing Emotionally Less Stable vs Stable 5.45* .00 16 16 PF PF E F Submissive vs Aggressive Sober vs Happy-go-lucky 1.57 .77 16 16 PF PF 6 H Expedient vs Conscientious Shy vs Venturesome .29 .67 16 16 PF PF I L Tough-minded vs Sensitive Trusting vs Suspicious 1.70 .44 16 16 PF PF M N Practical vs Imaginative Forthright vs Shrewd .00 .70 16 16 PF PF 0 Q1 Self-Assured vs Apprehensive Conservative vs Experimenting 1.39 .15 16 16 PF PF $2 Q3 Group-Dependent vs Self-Sufficient Casual vs Controlled 1.14 .02 16 PF SSHA SSHA Q4 Relaxed vs High Tension Level Study Habits Study Attitudes .01 .01 .46 * <.<D5 Ho 2 failed to be rejected at the .05 level for 16 PF c, E, F, G, H, I, L, M, N, 0, Qx, Q2, Q3, Q4, SSHA Study Habits and SSHA Study Attitudes. | 70 16 PF A# Reserved versus Outgoing Hq 2 was rejected at the .02 level of confidence for 16 PF A, Reserved versus Outgoing. Within the high aptitude group withdrawer scores were higher on 16 PF A. Within the low aptitude group the withdrawer scores were lower on 16 PF A. Figure 5 displays the differences within aptitude groups between persisters and withdrawers on 16 PF A. The slopes of difference suggest a symmetrical interaction. Aptitude Adjusted Mean Scores F Signif Persisters Withdrawers Difference icance High Low 18.01 19.47 1.46 21.07 19.44 -1.63 1.61 '3.37 >.25 <.10 OUTGOING 21 LOW APTITUDE 20 16 PF A SCORES 19 HIGH APTITUDE 18 RESERVED PERSISTERS WITHDRAWERS Fig. 5.— Differences between persisters and withdrawers within aptitude groups 16 PF A, Reserved vs Outgoing 71 Hypothesis Three Hq 3: Scores on 16 PF and SSHA scales do not significantly differ between persisters and withdrawers of each sex group when aptitude levels are combined. Tests of interaction between persistence and sex for each variable are shown in Table 21. TABLE 21.— Summary of persistence-sex interaction for 16 PF and SSHA Scale F 16 PF A Reserved vs Outgoing 2.91 16 PF C Emotionally Less Stable vs Stable 2.91 16 PF E Submissive vs Aggressive 1.11 16 PF F Sober vs Happy-go-lucky .84 16 PF G Expedient vs Conscientious .17 16 PF H Shy vs Venturesome .22 16 PF I Tough-minded vs Sensitive .76 16 PF L Trusting vs Suspicious 12.76*** 16 PF M Practical vs Imaginative 1.64 16 PF N Forthright vs Shrewd .90 16 PF 0 Self-Assured vs Apprehensive • — 6.76** 16 PF Qi Conservative vs Experimenting .45 16 PF Q2 Group-Dependent vs Self-Sufficient 1.11 16 PF Q3 Casual vs Controlled .21 16 PF 04 Relaxed vs High Tension Level 5.72* SSHA Study Habits .04 SSHA Study Attitudes 2.40 * p .05 ** p <.01 ***p <.001 72 H0 3 failed to be rejected at the .05 level for 16 PF A, C, E, F, G, H, I, M, N, Q1# Q2, Q3, SSHA Study Habits, and SSHA Study Attitudes. 16 PF L, Trusting versus Suspicious H0 3 was rejected at the .001 level of confidence for 16 PF L, Trusting versus Suspicious. Within the male group withdrawer scores were lower on 16 PF L. Within the female group withdrawer scores were higher on the 16 PF L. Figure 6 displays the differences within sex groups between persisters and withdrawers on 16 PF L. The slopes suggest the interaction is more related to lower male withdrawer scores than higher female withdrawer scores. 16 PF O, Confident versus Apprehensive H0 3 was rejected at the .01 level of confidence for 16 PF O, Confident versus Apprehensive. Within the male group withdrawer scores were lower on 16 PF 0. Within the female group withdrawer scores were higher on 16 PF O. Figure 7 shows the differences within sex groups between per sister and withdrawer 16 PF 0 scores. The male and female slopes indicate a fairly symmetrical inter action between persistence and sex. 73 Sex Adjusted Mean Scores Signif icance Persisters Withdrawers Difference r Male Female 18.89 16.30 -2.39 15.96 17.03 1.07 7.56 2.59 ^.01 7.25 SUSPICIOUS 19 18 MALES 16 PF L SCORES 16 FEMALES TRUSTING PERSISTERS WITHDRAWERS Fig. 6.— Differences between persisters and withdrawers within sex groups— 16 PF L, Trusting vs Suspicious Sex Adjusted Mean Scores T ? Signif icance Persisters Withdrawers Difference r Male Female 23.17 20.48 -2.69 24.66 25.94 1.28 3.70 1.71 4?. 10 <.25 APPREHENSIVE 26 FEMALES ^ ^--0 25 - ^ ---- 16 PF 0 24 — SCORES 23 - 22 _ MALES 21 CONFIDENT 1 _____________1 ----- PERSISTERS WITHDRAWERS Pig. 7.— Differences between persisters and withdrawers within sex groups— 16 PF 0, Confident vs Apprehensive | 75 16 PF Q4 Relaxed versus High Tension Level H0 3 was rejected at the .02 level of confidence for 16 PP Q4, Relaxed versus High Tension Level. Within male group withdrawer scores were lower on 16 PP Q4. Within female group withdrawer scores were higher on this factor. The slopes of males and females suggest that lower male withdrawer scores are the stronger component in this interaction (Figure 8). Sex Adjusted Mean Scores F Signif Persisters Withdrawers Difference icance Male Female 27.10 23.86 -3.24 28.94 29.93 .99 4.43 .79 ^.05 >.25 HIGH TENSION 30 FEMALES 29 O------------ 28 — 16 PP Q4 27 SCORES 26 __ MALES 25 24 23 RELAXED . . 1................. - ....1 . . . PERSISTERS WITHDRAWERS Pig. 8.— Differences between persisters and withdrawers within sex groups— 16 PP Q4, Relaxed vs High Tension Level 76 SSHA. Study Attitudes Although H0 3 failed to be rejected for SSHA Study Attitudes, it was of interest to examine differences between persister and withdrawer scores. SSHA Study Attitude scores for female withdrawers were lower than those of female persisters (Figure 9). Sex Adjusted Mean Scores Signif Persisters Withdrawers Difference F icance Male Female 55.51 56.33 .82 .11 63.30 60.07 -3.23 3.19 ^.25 <.10 63 62 61 SSHA 60 STUDY ATTITUDES 59 SCORES 58 57 56 55 PERSISTERS WITHDRAWERS MALES Fig. 9.— Differences between persisters and withdrawers within sex groups— SSHA Study Attitudes CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of certain personality traits and study orientation variables with early withdrawal from college. Review of the Literature The literature indicates that as many as 40 per cent of all college freshmen may withdraw and fail to complete the baccalaureate program. Studies of college attrition investigated a wide range of variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, institutional environment, personality, and educational orientation. Studies of student personality characteristics associated with withdrawal indicated the following: 1. There is much similarity between persisters and withdrawers. 2. Personality characteristics of withdrawers are frequently related to specific college environments, sex and other interacting variables. 77 78 3. There is a need for studies of the relationship between student personality and withdrawal based on student input obtained before the decision to withdraw. 4. Personality characteristics found to be associated with college withdrawal included emotional instability, non-conformity, irresponsibility, introver sion, dependency, trustfulness, anxiety, depression, and low self control. Procedures The population consisted of 920 or 99 per cent of the 930 full-time first-time entering freshmen class of 1967 at California State College, Fullerton, The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Forms A and B, 1967 Edition and the Brown Holtzman Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes, Form C, 1965 Edition were administered during registration week. The population was classified according to a three dimensional design with two classifications in each category: male and female, high and low scholastic aptitude test score, and persister and withdrawer. Withdrawers were defined as all students who failed to complete the 1967-68 school year at this college. This group included 104 students. As of the fall semester following their withdrawal 60 per cent of these students 79 had not requested transcripts to be sent to another college. Twenty-eight per cent had requested transcripts for a local junior college, and 12 per cent had requested transcripts to be sent to a four year college. With chronological age as a covariate, each of seventeen 16 PF and SSHA scales were examined through a 2x2x2 analysis of covariance in a search for significant criterion differences between persisters and withdrawers, and significant criterion interactions between persistence and aptitude, or persistence and sex. Findings and Conclusions Hypothesis One H0 1: Scores on 16 PF and SSHA scales do not significantly differ between persisters and withdrawers when sexes and aptitude levels are combined. Hq 1 was rejected at the .04 level of confidence for 16 PF E, Submissive versus Aggressive. The total withdrawer group scored as more Aggressive. Hypothesis Two H0 2: Scores on 16 PF and SSHA scales do not significantly differ between persisters and withdrawers within high or low aptitude levels when sexes are combined. H0 2 was rejected at the .04 level of confidence for 16 PF A, Reserved versus Outgoing. Within the high 80 aptitude group withdrawers scored as more Outgoing. Within the low aptitude group withdrawers scored as more Reserved. Hypothesis Three H0 3: Scores on 16 PP and SSHA scales do not significantly differ between persisters and withdrawers of each sex group when aptitude levels are combined. H0 3 was rejected for 16 PF L, Trusting versus Suspicious at the .0004 level of confidence. Within the male population withdrawers scored as more Trusting. Within the female population withdrawers scored as more Suspicious. H0 3 was rejected at the .01 level of confidence for 16 PF 0, Self-assured versus Apprehensive. Within the male group withdrawers scored as more Self-assured. Within the female group withdrawers scored as more Apprehensive. H0 3 was rejected at the .02 level of confidence for 16 PF Q4, Relaxed versus High Tension Level. Within the male group withdrawers scored as more Relaxed. Within the female group withdrawers scored as slightly more Tense. Although HQ 3 was not rejected for SSHA Study Habits, comparisons within sex groups were made as a matter of interest. Male persister and withdrawer scores 81 were approximately equal. However, within the female population withdrawer scores were lower as a confidence level of .08. Related Conclusions 1. The similarities were more prominent than the differences between persisters and withdrawers on the personality and study orientation variables explored in this study. 2. Five of the 16 PF factors assessed at the beginning of the freshman year appeared to be associated with later withdrawal from college. 3. Only one out of the five significant critical personality factors was related to the main effect of persistence. The investigation of interactions was the most productive area of the study. 4. Study habits and study attitudes as measured by the SSHA were not clearly associated with college withdrawal. There was evidence however, that SSHA Study Attitudes might have been associated with withdrawal among the female group. Discussion and Implications The 16 PF Profile characterized male withdrawers as follows: 82 More aggressive (independent/ assertive, stubborn) . More trusting (adaptable, free of jealousy, easy to get along with). More confident (Self-assured, serene, placid). More relaxed (tranquil, unfrustrated, torpid). The 16 PP profile characterized female withdrawers as follows: More aggressive (independent, assertive, stubborn). More suspicious (self-opinionated, skeptical, jealous). More apprehensive (worrying, depressive, guilt-prone). More tense (driven, over-wrought, fretful). In addition, high aptitude withdrawers of both sexes were characterized as: More outgoing (warm-hearted, easy-going, participating). Low aptitude male and female withdrawers were described as: More reserved (critical, cool, detached). High 16 PF E (Aggressive-Assertive) was the only variable associated with all categories of withdrawers. This finding was consistent with the findings of Brown (1960) and Astin (1964). A low score on this 16 PF scale is described as submissive, obedient, or conforming. The implication that institutionalized higher education is rewarding to the conforming and unattractive to the aggressive, independent student is not surprising, but nonetheless troubling. Although neither excessive submissiveness or excessive aggressiveness may be valued outcomes of higher education, the possibility suggested is that submissiveness and conformity are reinforced while aggressiveness and independence are discouraged. It seems important to speculate on the reason for the significant interaction between persistence and sex for three 16 PF factors. Suspiciousness, apprehensive ness, and tenseness characterized persisting for males, but withdrawing for females. Perhaps these traits relate to common needs which are differentially reduced for the masculine role by the vocational security or achievement of a college education, and for the female role by the establishment of a marriage and family. At any rate, the withdrawal of males described as trusting, self-assured, and relaxed raises interesting questions. Perhaps these men were more able to risk temporarily interrupting their college education for a variety of personal reasons. On the other hand they may not have had the level of anxiety necessary to cope with the challenges of academic responsibilities. The lower scores on 16 PF L (Trustful) for male withdrawers were consistent with the findings of Astin (1964) and Daniel (1967). Female withdrawers however, scored higher on this scale. 84 The failure to find a significant relationship between the SSHA scales and persistence was not expected. However, the inspection of the relationship between SSHA Study Attitudes and persistence within each sex indicated a possible relationship within the female group,. with female withdrawers scoring lower at a significance level of .08. Recommendations 1. The present study was limited to withdrawal during the freshman year. It is recommended that the existing 16 PP and SSHA data be utilized in a longitudinal study of characteristics of long range persisters. 2. In view of contemporary concern with college student assertiveness, further consideration of the finding that high 16 PF E (Aggressive) was associated with freshman withdrawal by means of more in-depth methodology seems appropriate and relevant. 3. In view of the Male withdrawer profile including the traits of Trusting, Confident, and Relaxed, a study of the relationship between these findings and majors within the college in which these traits are critical is recommended. 4. interpretation of findings for future studies of student input data and withdrawal might be aided by 85 assertaining women's plans and attitudes toward marriage while in college at the time of entrance. 5. Continued efforts to investigate the relationship of study habits and study attitudes with college persistence should be made with higher controls or perhaps different criteria. 6. It is recommended that further research consider the relationship of college major with student characteristics and persistence. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Brown, W. F., and Holtzman, W. H. Manual, Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes; Form C. New York: The Psychological Corp., 1966. Cattel, Raymond B. The Scientific Analysis of Personality. Baltimore: Penguin Books, Inc., 1965. _______, and Eber, H. W. Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, Illinois: The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1957. Dalrymple, Willard. "The Dropout in Conflict with Society." The College Dropout and the Utilization of Talent. Edited by Lawrence A. Pervin, Lewis E. Wright, and Willard Dalrymple. Princeton University Press, 1966. Hundleby, John B.; Pawlik, Kurt; Cattel, Raymond B. Personality Factors in Objective Test Devices: A Critical Integration of a Quarter of a Century1s Research. San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, 1965. Knoell, Dorothy M. "A Critical Review Research on the College Dropout." The College Dropout and the Utilization of Talent. Edited by Lawrence Pervin, Lewis E. Wright, and Willard Dalrymple. Princeton University Press, 1966. Levenson, Edgar A. "The College Dropout and the Utilization of Talent." The College Dropout and the Utilization of Talent. Edited by Lawrence A. Pervin, Lewis E. Wright, and Willard Dalrymple. Princeton University Press, 1966. Lorr, Maurice. "Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire." The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Edited by 0, K. Buros. Highland Park, N.J.: Grypon Press, 1965. 87 88 Stern, G. G., Stein, M. I., and Bloom, B. S. Methods in Personality Assessment. Glencoe: Free Press, 1965. Summerskill, John. "Dropouts from College." The American College. Edited by N. Sanford. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962. Articles and Periodicals Abel, Walter H. "Attrition and the Student Who is Certain." Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLIV (June, 1966), 1042-1045. Ashbrook, J. B., and Powell, R. K. "Comparison of Graduating and Non-graduating Theological Students on the Minnesota Multipha.sic Personality Inventory." Journal of Counseling Psychology, XIV (March, 1967), 171-174. Astin, A. W. "Personal and Environmental Factors Associated with College Dropouts among High Aptitude Students." Journal of Educational Psychology, LV (August, 1964), 219-227. Barger, Ben, and Hall, Everette. "Interaction of Ability Levels and Socio-Economic Variables in Prediction of College Dropouts." Educational and Psychological Measurements, XXV (Summer, 1965), 501-506. Becker, Wesley C. "A Comparison of the Factor Structure and Other Properties of the 16 PF and the Guilford- Martin Personality Inventories." Educational and Psychological Measurements, XXI (Summer, 1961), 393- 404. Behan, Laurence T. "Initial Psychiatric Interviews and the Dropout Rate of College Students." The Journal of American College Health Association, XIV (April, 1966), 305-308. Brown, F. G. "Identifying College Dropouts with Minnesota Counseling Inventory." Personnel Guidance Journal. XXXIX (I960), 280-282. 89 Cattel, Raymond B., and Scheirer, I. H. "Extension of Meaning of Objective Test Personality Factors; Especially into Anxiety, Neuroticism, Questionnaire, and Physical Factors.” Journal of General Psychology, LXI (1959), 287-315. Chambers, J. L.; Barger, B.; and Lieberman, L. R. "Need Patterns and Abilities of College Dropouts." Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXV (Summer, 1965), 569-515. Cross, K. Patricia. "On Creativity." The Research Reporter, The Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley, II (1967), 1-4. Dalrymple, Willard. "The College Dropout Phenomenon." NEA Journal, (April, 1967), 11-13. Daniel, Kathryn Barchard. "A Study of College Dropouts with Respect to Academic and Personality Variables." The Journal of Educational Research, LX (January, 1967), 230-235. Esty, John C., Jr. "College Dropouts' Real Problem; What to Drop Into?" College Board Review, LXII (Winter, 1966-67), 20-21. Gadzella, B. M., and Bentail, G. "Differences in High School Academic Achievements and Mental Abilities of College Graduates and College Drop-Outs." College and University, XLII (Spring, 1967), 351-356. Goetz, Walter, and Leach, Donald. "The Disappearing Student." The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLV (May, 1967), 883-887. Heilbrun, A. B. "Prediction of First Year College Dropout Using ACL Need Scales." Journal of Counseling Psychology, IX (January, 1962), 58-63. Hill, Arthur H. "Attendance and Withdrawal Among High Aptitude Students." The Journal of College Student Personnel (September, 1966), pp. 279-281. _______. "A Longitudinal Study of Attrition Among High Aptitude College Students." The Journal of Educational Research, LX (December, 1966), 166-173. 90 Levenson, Edgar A. "Psychiatrists Look at Dropouts." College Board Review. LVII (Fall, 1965), 9-14. Levonian, Edward. "A Statistical Analysis of the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire." Educational and Psychological Measurements. XXI (August, 1961), 589-596. Marks, E.? Ashby, J. D.; and Noll, G. A. "Recommended Curricular Change." The Personnel and Guidance Journal. XLIV (May, 1966), 974-977. Marsh, Lee M. "College Dropouts— A Review." Personnel and Guidance Journal, (January, 1966), pp. 475-481. Nelson, A. Gordon. "College Characteristics Associated with Freshman Attrition." The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLIV (June, 1966), 1046-1050. Nicholi, Armand M. "Harvard Dropouts: Some Psychiatric Findings." The American Journal of Psychiatry, CXXIV, No. 5 (November, 1967), 651-658. Pervin, Lawrence A. . "Counseling the College Dropout." Journal of College Placement, L (Octoberi November, 1965), 31. Prediger, Dale J. "Prediction of Persistence in College." Journal of Counseling Psychology, XII, No. 1 (1965), 62-67. Rose, Harriett A. "Prediction and Prevention of Freshman Attrition." Journal of Counseling Psychology, XII (Winter, 1965), 399-403. _______, and Elton, C., F. "Another Look at the College Dropout." Journal of Counseling Psychology, XIII (Summer, 1966), 242-245. Samenow, Stanton E. "Stddying the College Dropout." Teacher*s College Record, LXVIII, No. 8 (May, 1967), 649-651. Sheirer, I. H., and Cattel, Raymond B. "Conformation of Objective Test Factors and Assessment of Their Relation to Questionnaire Factors: A Factor Analysis of 113 Rating, Questionnaire and Objective Test Measurements of Personality." Journal of Mental Science, CIV (1958), 608-624. 91 Stone, L. A., and Ryan, G. E. "High School Study Habits and College Freshman Attrition.M Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLIII (October, 1964), 188-189. Trent, James W. "Encouragement of Student Development." NASPA Journal. LV (July, 1966), 35-45. Wharton, William P. "In Defense of Dropping Out." College Board Review. LX (Summer, 1966), 19-20. Williams, Vernon. "The College Dropout:. Qualities of His Environment." Personnel and Guidance Journal, (May, 1967), pp. 878-882. Published Reports California State Colleges. "California State College Admissions Table for Out of State High School Graduates." 1966. Cattel, Raymond B. "Psychiatric Screening of Flying Personnel: Personality Structure in Objective Tests— a Study of 1,000 Air Force Students in Basic Pilot Training.” Report No. 9, Project No. 21-0202-007. Randolph Field, Texas: USAF School of Aviation Medicine, 1955. _______, and Scheirer, I. H. "Factors in Personality Change: A Discussion of the Condition-Response Incremental Design and Application to 69 Personality Response Measures and Three Stimulus Conditions." Urbana, Illinois: Laboratory of Personality Assessment and Group Behavior; Advance Publication No. 9, 1958. _______. 16 PF Test Profile. Champaign, Illinois: Institute of Personality and Ability Testing, 1962. Chase, Clinton I. "The University Freshman Dropout." Indiana Studies in Prediction. No. 6, Bureau of Educational Studies and Testing, Indiana University, 1965. Iffert, Robert E. Retention and Withdrawal of College Students, Bulletin No. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1958. 92 Irvine, Donald W. , r Multiple Prediction of College Graduation from Preadmission Data." Research Studies in Student Personnel and Admissions, Report N. 65-4. Office of Admissions, University of Georgia, April, 1965. Newman, Mary Alice. "The Student and the College Community: A Study of Attrition and Persistence in a Highly Selective Liberal Arts College." University of Chicago, Cooperative Research Project No. S-130, 1965. Unpublished Material Curtis, J. R., and Curtis, T. E. "A Study of Drop-Outs at the University of North Carolina." Paper read at American College Health Association, Miami, April, 1965. Dole, Arthur A. "Is Motivation for College Associated with Voluntary Discontinuation?” Paper read at American Personnel and Guidance Association, Washington, April, 1966. Gough, H. G» Reference Handbook for the Gough Adjective Check List. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, 1955. Mimeographed. Horn, J. "Structure in Measures of Self-sentiment, Ego and Super-ego Concepts." Unpublished Master's thesis. University of Illinois, 1961. Iffert, Robert E. "Institutional Implications— Facilities, Faculties, Students.” Paper presented at the Princeton University Conference, October 8, 1964. Knoell, Dorothy M. "Needed Research on College Dropouts." Paper presented at the National Research Conference on College Dropouts, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, August 24, 1964. Panos, R. J., and Astin, A. W. "Attrition Among College Students." Paper read at American Education Research Association, New York, February, 1967. iRosenthal, Irene. "A Factor Analysis of Anxiety Variables." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, 1955. Smith, Stuart E. "SVIB Scores for Engineering Students: Comparisons with Liberal Arts Students, and Relationship to Withdrawal from Engineering.” Paper read at American Personnel and Guidance Association, Washington, April, 1966. Newspaper Article Shriver, F. Sargeant. "Attitude of the Student." Wesleyan University News, II (1964), 1. APPENDICES APPENDIX A INTRODUCTION— DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: 1967 FRESHMAN TESTING PROGRAM "Thank you for participating in the 1967 freshman testing program. "The purpose of this survey is to provide the college with information about attitudes and charac teristics of the freshman class as a whole. This type of knowledge assists us in providing you an educational experience of the highest quality possible. "Your individual responses and scores are completely confidential. They do not become a part of your college record and are not available to anyone, for any purpose other than group research. "Any #2 pencil will be acceptable for marking the answer sheets. If you do not have a #2 pencil, please raise your hand and I will give you one now. (Distribute pencils) "There will be two tests. The first will take about 25 minutes. The second will take about 80 minutes. "I will now distribute booklets and answer sheets. Do not open the booklet or complete the top of the answer sheet until I give instructions." (Distribute SSHA booklets and answer sheets) 95 APPENDIX B WITHDRAWAL FORM NAME ______ DATE Circle One: FROSH SOPH JR SR GRAD DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE CODE Of great importance . . . . ( 1 ) Of moderate importance . . ( 2 ) Presenting reason* ( 3 ) REASONS FOR WITHDRAWAL CODE (a) Student-Parent difficulties (b) Illness or physical disability (self) (c) Illness or physical disability (family) (d) Financial (family) (e) Financial (self) (f) Full time job (interest other than financial need) (9) Military service (drafted) (h) Military service (enlisted) (i) Recent or pending marriage (j) College work too difficult (h) Discouraged by low grades (1) Placed on academic probation (m) Marital difficulties (n) Dissatisfied with campus social life (o) Housing situation caused trouble (p) Could not decide on a major (q) College work uninteresting (r) College life too impersonal (s) Unsatisfactory study habits (t) Critical of college objectives, practices and requirements (u) Other EDUCATIONAL PLANS No plans to attend.college again Plans to return to CSCF Plans to transfer to another college Undecided Were attitudes, interests, study habits or personality characteristics a deciding factor in this student's decision to withdraw? YES NO Counselor________________________ *Code 3 may be combined with code 1 or 2 by the same reason 96 APPENDIX C ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE SUMMARY TABLES FOR 16 PF and SSHA 98 TABLE 22.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF A Reserved vs Outgoing Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 29 .71 Between Aptitude Groups 1 58 1.38 Between Sexes 1 1142 27.32♦♦ First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 201 5.45♦ Persistence x Sex 1 122 2.91 Aptitude x Sex 1 22 .53 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 0 .00 Covariate-Age 1 5 .12 Within Cell 893 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level 99 TABLE 23.— Analysis of covariance Emotional vs summary for Stable 16 PF C Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence 1 Groups 0 .01 Between Aptitude Groups 1 9 .19 Between Sexes 1 2 .04 First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 0 .00 Persistence x Sex 1 136 2.91 Aptitude x Sex 1 72 1.53 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 12 .25 Covariate-Age 1 189 4.04^ Within Cell 893 47 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level 100 TABLE 24.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF E Humble vs Assertive Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups Between Aptitude Groups Between Sexes First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude Persistence x Sex Aptitude x Sex Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex Covariate-Agd Within Cell 1 1 1 1 1 1 893 219 275 1,721 42 19 4 26 37 51 4.34* 5.43* 34.08** 1.57 1.11 .08 .51 .73 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level 101 TABLE 25.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF G Expedient vs Conscientious Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 96 2.96 Between Aptitude Groups 1 407 12.39^ Between Sexes 1 673 20.64^ First Order Interactions • Persistence x Aptitude 1 10 cn CM • Persistence x Sex 1 6 .17 Aptitude x Sex 1 1 .02 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 1 .04 Covariate-Age 1 162 4 .98^ Within Cell 893 33 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level 102 TABLE 26.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF F Sober vs Happy-Go-Lucky Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 64 .92 Between Aptitude Groups 1 40 .58 Between Sexes 1 192 2.75 First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 53 .77 Persistence x Sex 1 58 .84 Aptitude x Sex 1 8 .11. Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 1 .01 Covariate-Age 1 159 2.29 Within Cell 893 70 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level 103 TABLE 27.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF H Shy vs Venturesome Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 215 1.75 Between Aptitude Groups 1 236 1.92 Between Sexes 1 208 00 00 • First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 82 .67 Persistence x Sex 1 27 .22 Aptitude x Sex 1 22 .18 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 18 .15 Covariate-Age 1 104 .85 Within Cell 893 123 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level 104 TABLE 28.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF I Tough-Minded vs Tender-Minded Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 1 .07 Between Aptitude Groups 1 28 .81 Between Sexes 1 4,297 12 5.44^ First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 58 1.70 Persistence x Sex 1 26 .76 Aptitude x Sex 1 39 1.11 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 80 2.34 Covariate-Age 1 2 .06 Within Cell - 893 34 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level 105 TABLE 29.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF L Trusting vs Suspicious Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean- Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 16 .62 Between Aptitude Groups 1 3 .11 Between Sexes 1 62 2.37 First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 12 .44 Persistence x Sex 1 336 12.71** Aptitude x Sex 1 81 3.08 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 134 5.12^ Covariate-Age 1 71 2.72 Within Cell 893 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level V - 106 TABLE 30.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF M Practical vs Imaginative Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence 1 Groups 23 .53 Between Aptitude Groups 1 514 11.92^ Between Sexes 1 39 .90 First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 0 .00 Persistence x Sex 1 71 1.64 Aptitude x Sex 1 17 .40 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 8 .19 Covariate-Age 1 71 1.64 Within Cell 893 43 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level 107 TABLE 31.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF N Forthright vs Shrewd Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 1 .09 Between Aptitude Groups 1 95 5.61* Between Sexes 1 68 4.02* First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 12 .70 Persistence x Sex 1 15 .90 Aptitude x Sex 1 15 .89 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 6 .37 Covariate-Age 1 61 3.63 Within Cell 893 169 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level 108 TABLE 32.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF 0 Placid vs Apprehensive Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 29 • 00 Between Aptitude Groups 1 12 .20 Between Sexes 1 926 16.10^ First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 80 1.39 Persistence x Sex 1 389 6.76^ Aptitude x Sex 1 4 .07 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 1 .02 . Covariate-Age 1 559 9.12** Within Cell 893 57 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level 109 TABLE 33.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF Conservative vs Experimenting Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 1 • o to Between Aptitude Groups 1 381 16.00^ Between Sexes 1 712 29.90^ First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitudd 1 4 .15 Persistence x Sex 1 11 .45 Aptitude x Sex 1 16 .60 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 12 .51 Covariate-Age 1 23 I .97 Within Cell 893 24 ♦Significant at the .05 ievel ♦♦Significant at the .01 level ! 110 i - TABLE 34.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF Q2 Group-Tied vs Self-Sufficient Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 10 .28 Between Aptitude Groups 1 240 6.99** Between Sexes 1 638 18.54^ First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 39 1.14 Persistence x Sex 1 38 1.11 Aptitude x Sex 1 2 .05 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 2 .05 Covariate-Age 1 74 2.13 Within Cell 893 34 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level Ill • TABLE 35.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PF Q3 Casual vs Controlled Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 10 .32 Between Aptitude Groups 1 151 4.79^ Between Sexes 1 32 1.01 First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 1 .02 Persistence x Sex 1 7 .21 Aptitude x Sex 1 1 .04 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 9 .29 Covariate-Age 1 348 11.07** Within Cell 893 . 31 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level 112 TABLE 36.— Analysis of covariance summary for 16 PP Q4 Relaxed vs Tense Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 70 .96 Between Aptitude Groups 1 0 .00 Between Sexes 1 1,257 17.26^ First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 1 .01 Persistence x Sex 1 416 5.72* Aptitude x Sex 1 161 2.21 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 54 .74 Covariate-Age 1 412 5.65^ Within Cell 893 73 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level 113 TABLE 37.— Analysis of covariance summary for SSHA Study Habits Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 30 .12 Between Aptitude Groups 1 1 .00 Between Sexes 1 891 3.39 First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 4 .01 Persistence * Sex 1 11 .04 Aptitude x Sex 1 34 .13 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 144 .55 Covariate-Age 1 510 1.94 Within Cell 911 263 ♦Significant at the .05 level **Significant at the .01 level 114 TABLE 38.— Analysis of covariance summary for SSHA Study Attitudes Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares F Ratios Main Effects Between Persistence Groups 1 359 1.99 Between Aptitude Groups 1 48 .27 Between Sexes 1 330 1.83 First Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude 1 83 .46 Persistence x Sex 1 433 2.40 Aptitude x Sex 1 69 .38 Second Order Interactions Persistence x Aptitude x Sex 1 636 3.53 Covariate-Age 1 66 .37 Within Cell 911 180 .37 ♦Significant at the .05 level ♦♦Significant at the .01 level

Asset Metadata

Creator Russell, Jack (author)

Core Title An Investigation Of The Relationship Between College Freshman Withdrawal And Certain Critical Personality And Study Orientation Factors

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Metfessel, Newton S. (committee chair), Carnes, Earl F. (committee member), Hayes, Mabel (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-703186

Unique identifier UC11362096

Identifier 6916564.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-703186 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6916564.pdf

Dmrecord 703186

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Russell, Jack

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