University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The effect of noise on intellectual performance as related to personality and social factors in upper division high school students

(USC Thesis Other)

The effect of noise on intellectual performance as related to personality and social factors in upper division high school students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE EFFECT OF NOISE ON INTELLECTUAL PERFORMANCE AS RELATED TO PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL FACTORS IN UPPER DIVISION HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS by John Erwin Hoffman A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL In Partial Fn i f I 1 irnent «.r th< Rf.-q j I rrrneritM f >r the* Degree IOC TOR OF PH IIX): >0PHY ' Ed i -a t 1 ■ n ) i: i e This dissertation has been mlcroiUmed exactly as received 66-8789 H O F F M A N , Jo h n K rw in, 1921- T H E E F F E C T O F NOISE ON IN T E L L E C T U A L P E R FO R M A N C E AS R E L A T E D TO PE R SO N A L IT Y AND SO C IA L FA C TO R S IN U P P E R DIVISION HIGH SCHOOL ST U D E N T S, (Sound T a p e s fo r th is D is s e rta tio n A v ailab le fo r C o n su lta tio n at U n iv e rs ity of S o u th ern C a lifo rn ia L ib r a r y ] , U n iv e rs ity of S o u th ern C a lifo rn ia , P h.D ., 1966 E d u c a tio n , psychology University Microiilms. Inc.. A nn Arbor, Michigan UN IVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA TH E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N I V E R S I T Y PARK LOS A N G E L E S C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by ......John Erwin..HP.ffWD............ under the direction of h iff dissertation (Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the (iraduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the det/ree -of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y D/an ,, , June 1^66 I >]ss| u I A I K O IMMI'I I i I ^ / t r oe? i i f - v yhatr rrfan ” f v-v' f ' // . k T ^ ^ — & L u _______ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Tfce writer wishes to express his appreciation to: Glen A. Wilson, Superintendent of the La Puente High School District; and Jack W. Jolley, Principal of the Nogales High School, and hl3 staff for their cooperation in providing subjects for this study . The special services of the following instructors were greatly appreciated. Acting as examiners, as well as teacher-Judges were: Joseph Borchert, Steve Campbell, Ronald Gurney, Vernon Moore, and Laura Poynter. Others serving as teacher-Judges were: Charles Adams, Andrew Carroll, Hugo Celaya, Robert Converse, Bruce Dutton, Roy Excarcega, Sara Gipson, Joe Green, Ken Gunn, Emma Hardy, Rosemary Kehl, Thomas Lindley, Dougias Matheson, Howard Murray, Nancy Noble. Frank O'Kelly, Bruce Kitchen, B-d. Packer, Ulric Presta, Arthur Quadraccia, William heel, Rl. . . Sandison, Eldon Schnuelle, Marilyn Secrest, George Van Zant, Robert Wallen, Clifford Wolfe, and Dariyrie Wo iw- ru The assistance of Marjory Linde 11 in tn*- ;repara tion of materials and the control of tin- sound equipment was deeply appreciated. The author is indebted to William S. Pa.merst n : The National Broadcasting Company, Burbank, Ca.if rnla. : the preparation of the sound tapes. ii The cooperation of Henry B. Wilder, Preslden California Sound, in providing the equipment used in study, is greatly appreciated. Finally, to his wife and daughter, for their Btanding and forbearance throughout this period, the owes a special debt of gratitude. of this under- author TABLE OK CONTENTS ACKNOWI, m o t ok Ohaj It-r HI>G EMENTS TABLES . I I I fJTHOl HJCT ION Not’il C( r O r ' SL'iiiy I' irjHjat* | t at ill L In 1 La 1 , I* 'i i:i L L m l l a t l in O' In:i I rumeriL:: U; V in L timi 'O' T»’fma I'KK/IOWS KKSEAHOH AND HY BOTH K: in.' I Oh TUI-'. ’ .TODY Nut -!i' 11: ■ i ■ v 1 , i t, - 1 1*-: it i ! i I ■ ! S’ . . lit." . • .1 : *-: K.’t ,, i V .. h :ii'Di ■ n Ki t e : a r j :' i ■ ! In 1 .1 ■: '.’i t ■ i.• :; . n : ! 1 n \r . > i. t a ly <\ I :i' • Yu : O a t I.-,. » 1. t' 7 n : O a : . • a • j i ’ i a n. ► ■ , « \ 1: i 'ill;, a:,: I n ’ ’ ♦ :rro; AN. :oXi . : YKN TA I. . Iv: . JN * ■ * 1 ■ ' ! t m ‘Ti « , » v . • .. . : V . ■ . . .( i . : i In* .mi *. • ■ ^ . i . i :.:. i t L : ■ < i . : . . u: . 1 : * ' ■ : ’ < 1 1 : . : ■ ; . 1 ; ■ I’ . : 1 ' 'ci I : ■ . . ■ : ( ► . c n- . <A i A , ! : >M(>0 • - I 'I*Y Or- i O } t AS. i".. . A : . . . . ’ ( ) : • . ■ J\ : \ . ‘ c. .A. A . .of. '!.a: lay * T a i . i a t 1 >[. ■: h a v. o a ' a l’i r c n n in).’ > 1 I'a I a H> an. > ' e t i P 1 Ly o!' .SL i d v (I r. i( ;; Hella hLilL y ■>!' T V a e h f j h v a . u a ! 1 . n.“< V. r-.XAM I N A T I O N Oh T H h KXTKHLMKNTA1. HKh. . K q u l v a l e r . e e i-!' T c : ; l :■ h aril M T V h L m <■! t.hc Hy [ > < ■ Lh e m< ■ . < ’ I' r e ! a 1 1 u a . H< ■ :t i . L : Al l ! ' ! i .a . I n i rn f t 'I r : . hfMMAhY ANI C O l l ' l , : . l u N . . Jirur.ai'y ''■ r i . . n \ .'v.a : , : h« ■ >n • • :■ < ' A f ■ ■ '• a i i • \ : - A . “.A . ^ i i:*A . . : ■ V, h • : '.A A : \ T • ' i A r.\ -A • : A w A A A A A A i ' A ■ ' A . f' A i .A 1 • A ■ A i A * A A /■ h A A LIST OF TABLES Tat i. 1 . . ' i t alien IJs ing, Intermittent NoLse ................ 4_ 4 St ci U*n Un lng Steady No Lae ........................ St ml Lon Un Lng Variable Noise ..................... M , S>t an Lo n iln Lng Variable and Steady Noise A Study ' J: ; 1 ng. Steady and Intermittent Noise S i I t; : f the Gttid.y ............................ 1’ r< . m <■ 111 a I Lii V Interm I ttent N u l s e ........... To n ' ] ng M o d e i .................................................................................................... A r 1 1 ' Scores and Lone niptlve Charac ter- 1 .i t. i :• : <' nt r . ati i Experimenta 1 Group;; ' .mar. : i ■ <j: ' . > ■ t ' : Ten'. 1 ' . -r H i:i'Lly of V a: • 1 . a r. ■ < ■ ............................................. . . . .a: . , : A:.a . s : : • : VatTaiicc : ihc Heati^ : ' :i* r . . c : Var Lat ; < n .............. .’ ..'■a: . : ft S -S j . a :■(•. : Hard. .n.; y So . e : T« a : •• • ■ \ a . .a' l'«■ rn ■ i;Q . i / . “it*.*. . . . * , .................................. ’ . >■ : 1 ; . t . a ■ •:. • r i a: ■ ! ! • A . a . * * . * * a ' I* 1 ' * . It. * -i * ' at A a . . a ■ . a nr e : A : ' . ' * : : 1 ' A . 1 • . • v * l n 1r ^ ^ t r . , : . > , ' ............................................................................................................ . a , 11;. t * a t. t a ; . . * . . a ’ ^ i. ■ ! ;. > At .:, t ' ■ : < A t .:. n : . 11 t , . , a ■ . t : , . < . ■ . ................ a A .a . t . a ; . a;. • : A i : • • • ' ■ ^ . IW 1 Page 2 b 2'» do ')2 f >1 Y.: Table Page 17. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Adjusted Difference Scores of Male and Female Subjects 85 1 8. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Adjusted Difference Scores of Subgroups Determined by Direction of Blame as Indicated on Student Questionnaires ................................... 86 19. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Adjusted Difference Scores of Subgroups Determined by Reading Level ................................... 87 2 0. Summary of the Analysis of Variance of Adjusted Difference Scores of Subjects Reporting the Effect of Noise on Their Performance ......... 88 21. Means and Standard Deviations of the Adjusted Difference Scores Obtained by Students at Each of Three IQ Levels under Intermittent Noi3e at 75 db and 85 d b ................................. 90 22. Effects of Noise at Quiet, 751 and 8 5I Levels on Subjects at Three IQ L e v e l s ................... 93 23. Correlation Coefficients Relating to Hypotheses Nos. Nine through Itlrteen..................... 97 24. Group I Raw Data-Teacher Questionnaire .......... 127 25. Group II Raw Data-Teacher Questionnaire .... 129 26. Group III Raw Data-Teacher Questionnaire .... 132 27. Group IV Raw Data-Teacher Questionnaire .... 135 28. Group V Raw Data-Teacher Questionnaire .......... 137 26. Group I (Control) Raw Data................... 140 3 6. Group II (76 db Intermittent Noise) Raw Data . . 142 31. Group III (06 dL Intermittent Noise) Raw Data . 145 32. Group IV (75 db Steady Noise) Raw Data.... 148 3/. Group V (65 db Steady Noise) Raw Data ..... 151 vli Table Page 34. Analysis of Variance of the Raw Difference Scores Achieved under Quiet, 751, 8 5 1, 75S, and 8 5S db L e v e l s ............................ 168 35. Means and Standard Deviations of the Raw Dif ference Scores Achieved under Quiet, 751, 851* 75S and 8 5S db Levels................... 16 8 3 6. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Raw Differ ence Scores of Subgroups with IQ's (0-88), (89-113), and (114+).......................... 1 6 9 37- Summary of Analysis of Variance of Raw Differ ence Scores of Male and Female Subjects . . 170 3 8. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Raw Differ ence Scores of Subgroups Determined by Direction of Blame as Indicated on Student Questionnaires ................................. 171 39. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Raw Differ ence Scores of Subgroups Determined by Reading Level ................................. 172 40. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Raw Differ ence Scores of Subjects Reporting the Effect of Noise on Their Performance .............. 173 41. Sound Level Readings During First Day Testing Situations..................................... 175 42. Sound Level Readings During Second Day Testing Situations ............................ 175 4 3. Sound Level Readings During Third Day Testing Situations..................................... 175 44. Sound Level Readings During Fourth Day Testing Situations ............................ 176 4 5. Other Sound Level Readings .................... 176 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This Is a study of the effect of noise on Intel lectual performance as related to social and personality factors. Researchers have shown Interest In the effect of noise since the early experiments of Wundt (187*0 • The Interest has increased during recent years because of Jet- powered travel, the mechanization of construction tech niques, and the introduction into the classroom of teach ing machines. Present concern regarding the effect of noise on human performance was reflected in an editorial by Norman Cousins (Dec. 8, 1962) in the Saturday Review. Cousins stated, "The noise level is rising and the level of common sanity 13 falling. . . . We can't escalate the decibels without shrinking the human mind." A recent survey made by S. Griffiths (1959) in an endeavor to determine causal factors in the alleged deterioration of academic perform ance of individual secondary students, cited the lack of facilities for quiet study in the home as a definite factor in their academic failure. Although it is commonly accepted that noise has a deleterious effect on human performance, there are Instances which seem to prove the contrary to be true. In athletic competition, for example, the exploding roar of the crowd appears to spur the athletes to perform with greater energy. In certain entertainment fields, the interrupting applause of the audience seems to heighten the awareness of the artist, and he is enabled to give a more Inspired performance. An examination of the literature reveals conflict ing evidence. Angellno and Mech (1955) as well as Auble and Britton (1958) reported a deleterious effect on per formance when the sound level was 80 decibels (db) to 85 db level. Broadbent (1957) reports no difference in per formance at sound levels of 80 db to 90 db, while Kirk and Hecht (1963) find performance improved under noise (64.5 db) conditions. These studies are presented with others in the review of literature in Chapter II. The literature suggests that (a) noise produces a decrement in performance, (b) noise has no effect on per formance, and (c) noise produces an increment in perform ance . Each experimenter has endeavored to explain the re sults of his experiment, and at this time, it is too early to dismiss the results or the explanations given until further information is available. An attempt should particularly be made to determine the effect of noise on high school student performance, because poor performance appears to be one of the chief factors resulting in drop-outs among high school students, according to Conant (1961). One such high school study has been reported. Schllchter (1959) investigated the effects of auditory distractions upon learning, as reflected in test scores, of senior students of a Florida high school. Sound was presented from a single speaker placed outside the central window of the testing room. No attempt apparently was made to measure the level of sound in the testing room during the quiet testing condition or during the presenta tion of sound. Fowler (1953) had reported that sound levels may vary greatly in a room. This variation of db level would be particularly true when sound originated from a single source. Each subject in the Schllchter study may have been working under a different noise level. Although Schllchter examined the' possible effect of the social posi tion of the head of the family on test performance, no attempt was made to examine other possible correlates which may have had an effect on student test scores such as per sonal adjustment, peer relationship, educational goal, or level of reading ability. Need for the Study The rising noise level in the classroom due to student activity, or noise related to the continued ex pansion and care of the school plant, make Imperative the further evaluation of the effect of noise on the intellec tual performance of the high school student. Architects and sound engineers have attempted to quiet the high school classroom through design and selec tion of acoustical materials for its construction. Present plans indicate high school classrooms are to be carpeted. Are noisy classrooms producing a decrement in the intel lectual performance of students, or is the attempt to quiet the classroom an effort in behalf of teacher comfort? The major portion of the literature reviewed examined the effect of noise on subjects of college age or older. There is a paucity of research on the effect of noise on the intellectual performance of the high school student. Purpose This study was designed to examine the effect of intensified playground noise on the intellectual perform ance of 11th grade high school students as reflected by a score on a standardized paper and pencil te3t. An attempt was made to determine whether factors such as Intelligence, sex, personality traits, or personal goals are correlates of the effects. It was hypothesized that loud noise would produce a deleterious effect on test scores, and that intermittent loud noise would have a more deleterious effect than steady loud noise. Specific hypotheses are presented in Chapter II. Concomitant problems to be treat'd in this study are reflected in the following questions: 1. Does intensified playground noise affect per formance on cognitive tasks? 2. Do the effects of noise vary systematically with personality characteristics? 3. Are the effects of noise distraction, if any, differential for Intelligence levels, educational goals, or sex? 4. Do subjects identified as superior readers per form more effectively under noi3e conditions than subjects identified as poor readers? 5. Does the subjective report of the effect of noise on performance agree with the objective data? Scope and Limitations This study was limited to the effect of intensified playground noise upon the intellectual performance of 281 11th grade students enrolled in fourteen English III classes of the Nogales (California) High School. Playground noise was presented continuously or intermittently at 75 db and 85 db levels. No attempt was made to study the effect of playground nolBe at usual levels. The subjects par ticipating in this study represent 66 per cent of the 11th grade students enrolled at the Nogales High School. Two classes with average reading ability were excluded from the study in order to complete the testing program within the four-day period. Other students not Included In the study were: (a) those who were absent on either day of testing, (b) those students whose parents had requested that they not participate because of hearing or other problems, and (c) non-readers. The study wa3 limited to Intellectual performance as measured by the Differential Aptitude Test, Verbal Reasoning Test, Forms L and M (Appendix F). This test was chosen because it closely parallels school-type reasoning ability tests. The administration of the test requires 30 minutes, which made possible the completion of the test before the end of the 5 0-mlnute class period; thus the noise which occurs as students change classes was avoided. The data of the following subgroups were examined: 1. The performance of male and female subjects. 2. The performance of subjects identified by personality traits as reflected by the 3tudent question naire (Appendix B) and the instructor questionnaire (Ap pendix A) . 3. The performance of high, average, and low IQ groups as determined by scores on the California Test of Mental Maturity, Short Form, 1957 Edition. 4. The performance of subjects selecting the pre-college program of study and the terminal or applied program of study. This Information was found In the student'3 cumulative folder. 5. The performance of superior, average, and be low average readers as determined by a score on the California Achievement Test, Reading, 1957 Revision. Limitation of Instruments The conclusions of this experimental study are dependent on the following assumptions: 1. That the Differential Aptitude Test, Verbal Reasoning (VR), Forms L and M, 19bi edition, mbs a measure of Intellectual performance suitable for the need3 of thl3 study. The dependent variable in this study was a differ ence score obtained by subtracting the subject's score on the VR te3t under experimental conditions from the score achieved under quiet testing conditions. This DAT-VR was selected because the primary purpose of th^ research was the evaluation of the student'3 ability to abstract or generalize and to think constructively, rather than of his simple fluency or vocabulary recognition. It was assumed that the analogies-type teat was particularly appropriate for the measurement of reasoning ability, and very closely resembled the tasks the subjects faced in the regular school program. The authors of this test are G. K. Bennett, H. G. Seashore, and A. G. tfesman . The DAT is 8 published by the Psychological Corporation. This test is a paper-pencil group test. 2. That the California Test of Mental Maturity, y Short Form, 1957 revision, was a measure of intelligence suitable for dividing groups into ability levels. All 11th grade students are required to take this test of Intelligence. TTie test is a paper and pencil group te3t. The data of this test were used merely to divide the population under study into three subgroups: IQ 88 or les3, IQ 89-113, and IQ 11*4 and above. The authors of the CTMM are E. T. Sullivan, W. W. Clark, and E. W. Tiegs. The CTMM 1s published by the California Test Bureau. 3. That the California Achievement Test, Advanced Reading, 1957 Revision, was a measure of reading ability. This is a paper and pencil group test and was administered to all students enrolled at Nogales High School. The CAT Reading score is used by the Nogales High School Adminis tration as the major factor influencing the placement of a 3tudent in a specific English III class. The level of reading as reflected by class placement was the determiner for the present study for subgroups identified as below average ( M , average ('), and above average (8+) students. (These code numbers for levels of reading ability are those in use in the cooperating school district and have been adopted for the purpose of this study . ) * 4 . That the evaluation of the personality traits of subjects on a three-choice scale by three teacher'-Judges is a valid measure in each area. This paper-penci1 evalua tion sheet was prepared for thin study. See Appendix A. 5. That the Btudent questionnaire, a paper and pencil self-evaluation sheet, provides valid information regarding the personality traits of the subject, and his estimate of the effect of noise on his performance. Thin evaluation sheet was prepared for this study. .lee Appendix B. Definition of Terms Quiet . The condition of quiet was interpreted as the mean of multiple measures taken during u.sua; tenting conditions. The mean db rtise .eve. during testing m-ier quiet conditions was u *;..*• d: . Noise. The rv.ls»- .se : a:, trie 1 ride; e rid ent varlat .e in this study was actua. ; . aygr ,n: n Ise : e ■ n- : : r presentation at the 11 ~ e f the ex i e rimer.*. When n l . * • e war- presented at a mean 1 *• ve . ’■ dt r.* • 1 n’ * • no 1 ’ range : from t>9 to 62 dt . When r. is*- was j : e sente : a' a mean . e ve . of fab db, trio tntens ity range i : r -m " '*. n Tr.e u level was not altered l lng te:--* ing : j * S • 1 r. Intermitter.t n.do* T.o 1 s wa:. ; e r 1 :i j : e e n • a 1 1 of playground noise. N- ise was ; re s e r.b e : • ;*-,*• en' : the time. The snortest * ren er.b a t 1 r . r.a: ; • • • n ; * » r . 1 the longest presentatl r . «as se r*j;. 10 Steady noise. TYiis was a continuous presentation of the recorded playground noise. CHAPTER II PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND HYPOTHESES OP THIS STUDY An attempt was made in this chapter to summarize and evaluate previous research related to the problem. Hypotheses were developed, based on the findings of past research and the generally accepted concepts of the effect of noise on the behavior of individuals with certain per sonality traits. Nature of Previous Research An examination of previous research reveals that the study of the effect of noise has been restricted almost completely to adults. Noise 13 actually a very general term and may refer to many types of auditory environment. The tasks employed have for the most part been visual-motor type tasks, which require the subject to respond to a visu al stimulus by pressing a switch or touching a contact. Reviewers of the effects of noi3e on human per formance agree that the literature published before 1950 provides little basis for drawing conclusions (Berrien 19^6; Broadbent 1954; Kryter 1950; Plutchik 1959; and Zaidi 1959). Previous Literature Experiments reviewed in this study have been 11 12 published during the period 1951 to 1964. Twenty-five studies are known to have been made of the effect of noise on behavior during this period. These studies may be classified according to the independent variable as fol lows: (a) intermittent sound; (b) steady sound; (c) vari able Bound; (d) steady and variable sound, and (e) steady and intermittent sound. Studies U3lng Intermittent Sound Three studies were reported in which Intermittent sound or noise was employed a3 the independent variable. Smith (1951) studied the effects of intermittent loud noise on mental performance. The noise stimulus was 100-£2 db for each subject. Quiet was not defined. The noi3e:silence ratio for the experimental group was unity. Bursts of sound ranged from 10 seconds to 50 seconds and were administered at Irregular and unpredictable intervals . Fifty-two males and 17 females served as subjects. The task wa3 performance on the Minnesota Clerical Test and the Revised Minnesota Paper Form Board Test (Series AA). The time allowed was 30 minutes. An incentive of cash prizes ranging from $2 . 5 0 to $1 5 . 0 0 was used to provide a high level of motivation. Smith reports that bursts of intense noise resulted in increased quantity and decreased quality of response. Broadbent (1957) made a study of the effect of 13 loud noise (100 db) and moderate noise (75 db) on the ability of subjects to match an Introduced burst of noise with the criterion. Twenty-six subjects were chosen for this experiment. All were navy personnel (referred to by Broadbent as "naval ratings") under the age of 30. The independent variable wa3 noise which had been filtered so that one tape presented sound with a frequency of over 2000 cps while a second tape presented sound with less than 2000 cps. Broadbent states that low intensity and low frequency noi3e gave a 3low response compared with the high frequency noise, but the differences disappeared at high intensities. Telchner, Arle3 and Reilly (1 9 6 3) studied the ef fect on performance on a search ta3k of 100 db white noise as compared with quiet on the matching of slides when noise wa3 presented 3 0, 7 0, and 100 per cent of the time of the experiment. Twenty-four college students were randomly assigned, 12 to one group which was presented with the on set of noise and the slides simultaneously and 12 to a group which wa3 adapted to the noise for four minutes be fore the slides appeared. The ta3k was the discovery of a given two-letter combination of 3lldes containing twenty letters of the alphabet. Each subject was run through a Latin square arrangement of four successive daily sessions. The authors found the differences between the preadapted and the simultaneously adapted group to be significant. 14 When sound was presented 30 per cent of the time, the simultaneously adapted group performed with greater ef ficiency. When sound was presented 100 per cent of the time all groups lost their efficiency. When sound was presented 70 per cent of the time, the preadapted group performed significantly better. The authors conclude that the data support the adaptation-arousal hypothesis. Studies Using Steady Noise Twelve studies were reported in which steady noise was used as the independent variable. Broadbent (1953) examined the effect of noise on the performance of vigi lance tasks under paced and unpaced conditions. There were 47 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 30 years. These sub jects were naval ratings. The task required a five serial choice reaction. The subject touched a contact correspond ing to the lamp which was alight. The test was completed in two one-half hour periods. The design of the experi ment provided for the testing of 50 per cent of the group under quiet conditions followed by testing under noise. The remaining 50 per cent were tested under noise condi tions followed by testing under quiet conditions. Thus serial effect was avoided. Noise was reported to be 100 db, while quiet was defined as 70 db. Although the effect ob served was not uniform throughout the period, Broadbent reports that noise had a deleterious effect on the 15 performance of his subjects. In addition, he pointed out the apparent Improvement of performance during the first 5 minutes of work under noise conditions. Broadbent (1954) studied the effect of 100 db noise as compared with 70 db noise on visual performance. Two visual tasks were assigned. The first was the watching of 20 steam gauges. When the needle approached the danger point, the subject was to turn a knob below the dial. The second task was the pressing of a key when a lamp was "alight.1 * The subject was required to watch 20 lights. Ten naval ratings were subjects for this study. Their ages ranged from 18 to 30 years of age. The loud noise was re ported to have had a deleterious effect on the performance of the difficult task of gauge watching, but no effect on the performance on the light experiment. Broadbent con cluded that the effect of noise was positively correlated with the difficulty of the task. Angellno and Mech (1955) examined the possible in fluence that the level of personality adjustment--as de termined by the California Test of Personality (Adult Form AA)— might have on the effect of noise as reflected In performance of a simple task of addition. The noise level was 85 db. The level of quiet was not reported. The twenty-three female and 5 male subjects participating in this experiment were college students. One group of 14 had high scores on the personality test, while the remaining 14 16 had low 3cores. Angellno and Mech reported an Inverse re lationship between "adjustment" and routine performance under noise conditions. Broadbent (1957) studied the effects of high and low frequency noise on behavior. The subjects in this study were naval ratings under the age of 30. Twenty-four subjects were divided into three equal groups. Each group was required to watch a five light display and touch a con tact under each light when it was alight. The noi3e was filtered. One tape presented noise with frequencies above 2000 cps., while the second tape presented noise with frequencies below 2000 cps. Broadbent reported no effect for low frequency or high frequency noise at the 80 or 90 db level. The effect was deleterious at the 100 db level. The high frequency noise had the more deleterious effect on performance. The effect of noise on a task which needed complex thought was examined by Broadbent (1958). The task was a series of subtractions. For this experiment 18 Royal Navy enlisted men served S3 subjects. Noise wa3 defined as 100 db, while relative quiet was 70 db. Broadbent reports the use of a control group in this study. The design was as follows: Quiet-Quiet (Q-Q), Qulet-Nolse (Q-N), and Noise- Quiet (N-Q). Broadbent reports noise had a deleterious effect on the group which worked under loud noise 17 conditions on the first day. Hie effect, which was present even under quiet conditions the following day, was explained as a conditioned response. Jerlson (1959) studied the effects of noise on human performance. In the three experiments to be re viewed here, the general procedure was to run subjects in dividually through three work sessions with one week inter vals between sessions. The first experiment was published by Jerlson and Wing (1957). The nine subjects were paid volunteer male undergraduates. The task was the monitoring of a panel of three Mackworth-type clocks and the pressing of a response switch under a clock when its hand stepped through twice its usual excursion. Double steps occurred haphazardly at Intervals that averaged about once a minute for each clock. Noise was reported to be 114 db, while quiet was defined as 83 db. During the first three one- half hour sessions no difference was noted. During the fourth half-hour a significant decrement of performance of the experimental group was noted. The second experiment reported by Jerison (1959) studied the effect of noise on complex mental counting. The subjects of thl3 study were required to make a separate count of each of three flashing lights. When a count of 10 was reached, the subject pressed a button under the light. The first session was a practice session. The second and third sessions were broken down into one-half hour periods and the experimental model was as follows: Group QN, session 2-QQQQ, session 3-QNNNj Group NQ, session 2-QNNN, session 3-QQQQ. Noise was presented at 111.5 db. Quiet was reported as 77*5 db. Fourteen sub jects participated In this study. No significant differ ence was reported regarding the performance of Group QN. Group NQ reflected a deleterious effect of noise during the noise period and this effect continued to be evident during the quiet period. Jerlson suggests that working on a tedious and difficult task for two hours under the QNNN regime conditioned the subjects to a progressive breakdown of performance. Working in quiet first, on the other hand, appeared to dispose the subject toward maintaining their original performance level even under noise conditions. The third experiment reported by Jeri3on (1959) had been previously published by Jerlson and Smith (1955). The effect of noise on time Judgment was examined. While performing the task described in experiment two, reported above, the subjects were required to press a telegraph key at what they Judged to be 10-minute intervals. A signifi cant difference was found between time Judgments as measured in this experiment when the comparison was be tween Judgments under noise of 111.5 db and Judgments under "quiet" conditions (75.5 db). Noise was found to have a deleterious effect. A study was reported by Horman (I960) in which the effect of sound on learning was examined. Thirty-six sub jects were selected. Three groups of twelve participated in the learning of the same list of paired associates. The first group was subjected to noi3e under 55 phons. The second group was subjected to 75 phon3 while the third group worked under quiet conditions. Quiet was not de fined. Horman reported that the group with the best per formance was the 55 phon level, while the groups working under quiet condition and 75 phon level worked les3 ef fectively. Teichner, Arles and Reilly (1963) reported a study of noise and human performance. White noise was used in this study. It was presented at 57, 69, 8l, 93, or 105 db depending upon the experimental conditions. Ninety college students were randomly assigned to experimental groups. Five control groups worked 60 minutes under one level of sound. Four groups began the experiment with noise of 8l db level. Without warning the noise was changed to 57> 69, 93* or 105 db for the last fifty of 200 trials. The task was to report the discovery of one of a set of five three- letter combinations out of a display of 10 alphabetic letters which was exposed through a shutter-controlled aperture. As soon as a selection was made a new set of ten letters was exposed. The authors found errors were negligible since the task was paced by the subject. 20 Significant differences were noted, however, when speed of decision was compared. The group which performed with greatest effectiveness was the one which had the same level of sound throughout the experiment. The degree of decre ment in speed of decision appeared to be positively cor related with the degree of db level change from the 8l db level whether positive or negative. Wilkinson (1963a) examined the effect of 100 db white noise on a five choice test of serial reaction. Twelve subjects ranging in age from 18 to 30 were used in the study. The task required the subject to touch the metal contact beneath the lamp alight among the five lamps on the panel. The test required 30 minutes. Three hours previous practice occurred before the testing run. The subjects had been without sleep for 32 hours. Sleep deprivation reduced the decrement produced by noise. Wilkinson (1963b) reported a second experiment in which he examined the effect of "knowledge of results" on performance. White noise at 100 db level was introduced. This group of twelve subjects had only one-half hour pre vious practice on the task requiring the subject to touch the contact below the lamp alight on the panel of five lights. The test extended over a 30-mlnute period. Knowledge of the results Increased the deleterious effect of noise. Quiet was not defined in Wilkinson's two 21 experiments. Studies Using Variable Noise Five studies were reported in which variable noise was used as the independent variable. Auble and Britton (1953) studied the possible effect which the level of anxiety as measured on the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale may have on the effect of noise on performance. Thirty-two undergraduate women were used as subjects. Sixteen subjects had received high scores on the TMAS while 16 had received low scores on the seune scale. These two groups were sub divided to form experimental and control sub-groups of eight subjects each. The variable noise was produced by playing records at an average of about 80 db. The record ings were "I Can Hear It Now, Volume I" (Columbia ml4095) and "Speech of Mental Patients" (Sound Seminars No. 111). The task wa3 a paper and pencil type test requiring the subject to check the name or number as is required by many clerical aptitude tests. Each subject was required to check 1000 items. An incentive was provided by informing all groups that the four subjects who improved their per formance the most would receive a one-dollar prize. A pre test measure was achieved by a 15-minute period of work in quiet condition by all subjects. The control groups con tinued to work under quiet conditions, while the experimen tal group worked under noise conditions during the 1-hour testing session. The performance during the final fifteen 22 minutes of the 1-hour session was compared with the pretest achievement. Aubl'e and Britton reported that the most anx ious Individuals performed significantly better under nol3e than they did under quiet conditions, while the least anx ious Individuals performed better under quiet conditions. However, the difference was not statistically significant. Schlichter (1959) examined the effect of "typical" noise on the performance of sophomore high school students. Two biology class sections were used as controls while three biology sections were used as the experimental group. Four days of Instruction were given to both groups, after which all were given the same examinations. Neither the noise nor the quiet levels were defined in decibels. No difference was found between the performance of the con trol group and the experimental group. McBaln (1961) studied the effects of variable noise on the performance of monotonous work as well as the pos sible relationship susceptibility to hypnosis may have on the effect of noise. The subjects for this study were twenty-six Royal Canadian Air Force men ranging in age from 19 to 36 with a mean age of 25.8. The task was the hand printing of a continuous sequence of seven pairs of capital letters. Each pair of letters required the 3ame number of strokes. The subject reported each mistake by pressing a foot lever. Prior to the test each subject was adminis tered a slightly modified form of the Frledlander and 23 Sarbln Scale of Hypnotic Depth. The noise presented was a tape of speech played in reverse to which had been added superimposed short fragments of Intelligible conversation, music and meaningless sound. TOie average decibel level of the noise or the level of quiet was not reported. Accuracy of performance under noise conditions was significantly better. There was no difference In the reporting of errors between the two groups. No difference was noted between the performance of those with a high hypnotic susceptibil ity and those with a low susceptibility, but those with low susceptibility signaled their errors with greater accuracy. Park and Payne (1963) examined the effects of noise as related to the difficulty of problems of division. For ty male college students served as subjects. They were divided into four groups on the basis of a five-minute pretest. Two groups served as control groups. One group worked difficult problems while the other group worked easy problems under quiet conditions. Two groups served as experimental groups. One group worked easy problems while the other group worked difficult problems under noisy conditions. Noise was defined as 98 to 108 db. Quiet was defined as 50 to 70 db. The mean level of noise or quiet was not reported. The testing sessions lasted for 20 minutes. There was no evidence of a decrement in per formance within the 20-mlnute session attributable to noise level. Reiter (1963) studied the effects of noise on dis crimination reaction time. Thirty-eight randomly selected first-year college males were used as subjects. Their average age was 18.2. The task was the pressing of a cor responding button when a lamp on a panel of six differently colored lamps was alight. Reaction time was measured by an Industrial timer. Noise was measured Ip microvolts by an audio oscllator. Noise was presented at different levels in randomly assigned sequences. Quiet was not defined. Noise was produced at -20, -10, -3> 0, +1, +3 microvolts. A specific noise level between -3 and 0 microvolts seems to be the optimal range of reduced reaction time. Studies Using Variable and Steady Noise Four studies reported employed variable noise as an independent variable as compared with steady noise. Wood- head (1959) investigated the effect of loud bursts of low- frequency noise on decision-making. The subjects used in the experiment were 48 enlisted men of age range 16 to 28. The task was the matching of ten cards each having six sym bols with a shutter type exhibited card. Noise was repor ted to range from 70 db to 110 db level, a recording of rocket blast. The sound blast lasted .95 seconds. The mean decibel level for the blast was not given. "Quiet" was actually a masking noise of 70 db resulting from the sound of an exhaust fan and the noise of a projection 25 machine. The noise of rocket firings had a temporary but real effect on efficiency. The blast affected five deci sions occurring immediately after its presentation. The second part of the Woodhead (1959) report examined the effect of the rocket blast when presented at differing intensities. The peak readings were 85, 95, 115 db. Eighteen of the previously mentioned subjects par ticipated in this study. The background noise was 70 db. The task was the same as in part one of the study. Wood- head reports that bursts of 95 and 115 db intensity caused a decrement, while 85 db level noise appeared to reflect the same effect; the trend did not approach significance. The more intense noise produced the greater effect. Sanders (1961) examined the influence of variable noise on two discrimination tasks, Forty air force ratings served as subjects. Bie task was performance on a modifi cation of Bourdon-Wiersma Cancelling Test and the Kraepelln Addition Test. Two conditions were compared: one with noise which varied in intensity from 65 to 90 db with a mean Intensity of 75 db, and steady noise reported as 70 db. Sanders reports that varying noise was more harmful to performance than steady noise. Kirk and Hecht (19^3) studied the effect of three environmental conditions on the performance of a simple vigilance task. Fifteen men and 15 women college students served as subjects. Ages ranged l’rom 18 to -u with a medi an of 20 years. The ta3k was the observation of a cathode ray tube on which a signal was presented. The subject pressed a key when the signal wa3 visible on the cathode ray tube. The constant noise was 84.5 db level. The vari able noise level averaged 64.5 db, varying no more than +4 db. Quiet was reported as 6l db. The experimental de sign was balanced to avoid the effect of serial presenta tion and the effect of te3t order. Kirk and Hecht found no difference between performance under variable and steady noise conditions. A Study Using Steady and Intermittent Noise One study reported may be classified as nrtnr steady and intermittent noise. Watkins (1 n* u ) examine : effect of certain nolse3 upon detection of vi.rua. slgna. - . The noise conditions were: (a) steady wnlte n Is* a* ’ :: throughout the session, (b) steady while n.ls*- ,n. a- moment of decision, (c) Intermittent or Mutter : ’ white noise through the session, and (1) Intermitt**r.* r flutter white noi3e (75 db) at the time of ie I:; I A signal wa3 provided when the response wan mru-r t. Wat x l:r. reported the superiority of visual detection wner * . . * ; * • .>■*•- nals were presented simultaneously with n iat-. N u ence in performance wa3 observed whlcn could be attri: it**: to the type of noise at the 75 db level. dlx train*.*: t r . r,- T ; , f ' r »- f, 1 '> i t * . t M * •.« ! • ? ' * .■ n . i m r ' i f l I r *■ 1 * i I ».3 ; r“ h■ ? i * * ; i ’, Tal . • • . 1 t ? * 11 ) r i • 1 '• * ; . . * , ■ . f r •• r. i * * ? r' ^ i * f i * /...Biaai j an-.! 0 - nh / , ) : ■ f ■ ■ i - ; * c i r i h * tii f ? t V*1. I f t , < • a r , v . jijtwi’ i t arii j«- *• i q u a i 1 r: f t • ' ' r ) * •, h ■ h . h : * t r i ; 1 i.t *• rtf. 1 U »■ r > ‘ a ' . * » < • i r < * h ' t i r i * ' . ■ i r < ; r r . • h ■ . i * : ■ • . • f t : a . ‘ ; A h , W r v~ X . V . X * . > . «s * i ^ Tj * » 4 . n ’ * . * « r 1 ► > * V = ■ • m l r j * . . * Ti n i X t V n V - • 1 9 _ r.) r . • - • > £ * i t » ■ ■ V ■ 5 * >f -* r . V i 1 i • l > ( . i i * - > o u a a t . '«< I . t «9 t ; ; ? k - « > * ;v > « U * ■ * -s t l ► > • ; i r . * 4 d » • < u » - pi : j 7J * • ' - f - 1 r . n y v. ' " * > & : : « 3 1 3 _ * * • • J- < - f c » * ■ » yc « ; t - o « t r * u L ■ * , *3 t < n t ,v . - v V f t f ) : . I w * ^3 i/ri C Ij n - * -4 > ■ » U ~ J m r,S > s r i | j * - + * * * J - ' 1 / • « «5 * t 1 t > i* * * u ' 7 * n t d * . ' i . J* n U t i • « f c ' *> - -< c ; n * t » n x: ;.w « i s "J 0 * - ^ > * ♦ > « J * / * - u - . u u L L TJ > c :i r : v n * - * n l. . ^ * . d i t , iu - » u « - ' a H' - t . V L . 4 f c ; 1 * >t f ! ■ ; . m f - . J r t r r” % * > ** • ^ i n 1 * * ■ . . i -y : : «j r V ■ . * # r U 1 j' .. * w : : i i .< <* * - # J * • * i • * » r i * ■ • f f** - ( *• i < - a •< - ' t ? : i • t . r r L . ♦ 3 - ' I ’ ^ a l IS r. r - ; a - - t ... . - , v I • \\ u — * ■ • V ? ■ ■ ■ t . * : r X tr, ! " u ■ J4 f- ,. . . . f < - - ( 9 ' • i L ■ ■ t ■ t : 1 ■ 4 - ! . v : " t - ■ v ' - r J P Yr»ar h.x; N S 11«‘ . > ' J " r ; - ad I r; * 1 c • • a 11 r:\\ 1955 Angelino 2c c5 db Mech 1957 Broadbent 2d 53 db (a) 93 db 103 db table ; 31 NO 37EADY S013£ / bsk Findings A V I ve-oho1cc serial reac tion. Touch contact be.lev* 1 ighted lam;. . Two vigilance basics: Twenty Dials Test. Twenty Lights Test. Addition A significant drop in performance when the 1st and oth ten-second periods were compared. Effect was not uniform through the period of testing. No difference was noted In perform ance of Twenty Lights Test under the two conditions. Significant difference in performance on the Twenty Dial3 Test. The "low adjustment" group per formed significantly better than the "high adjustment"group under noise conditions. A brass contact No difference was observed in per- was touched by formance under 80 db and 90 db a stylus each conditions. Significant differ- time one of a ences in performance were noted panel of five under noise of 100 db level, lamps was alight. ro vo TABLE 2 (Continued) Year Experimenter N Noise Quiet Task Findings 1958 Broadbent 18 100 db 70 db 1959 Jerlson (a) 9 114 db 83 db Adding a four digit figure to a previous ly observed 6 digit figure. Monitoring 3 clocks. A switch was pressed under each clock when its hand had completed 2 "pass-throughs" around the clock. 1959 Jerlson (b) 14 111.5 db 77.5 db Press signal each time any one of three lamps had flashed ten times. A group working in noise condi tions deteriorates more than a group working in quiet, even though both groups have previously performed a full session in quiet, lhe group which deteriorated sig nificantly under quiet conditions was the group which had previously worked under noise conditions. A significant deleterious effect during the 4th half-hour under 114 db noise. A subject may be conditioned for further breakdown under quiet conditions, if he first performs under noise conditions. 00 o TABLE 2 (Continued) Year Experimenter N Noise Quiet Task Findings 1959 Jerlson (c) Not 111.5 db 77.5 db Estimation of ten Those subjects working un- glven minute periods while der noise conditions per- performing experi- formed significantly less i960 Horman 36 1963 Teichner Arles Reilly (a) 1959 Wilkinson (a) 55 phon 75 phon 90 57 db 69 db 93 db 105 db 8l db 12 100 db ment (b). The learning of a series of paired associates. well in making time judg ments than those working In quiet conditions. The best performance occur red under noise of 55 phons. Those working under quiet and those working under noise of 75 phons worked less effectively. Selection of one of Distraction is positively five letter 3ets correlated with the amount previously memorized of change. Less decrement out of letters ex- was noted for changes in posed. decibel level upward. Hiere are five light Sleep deprivation (32 hrs.) bulbs with five as- reduced the decrement pro- soclated contacts. duced by noise. Subject touches con tact of lamp alight. TABLE 2 (Continued) Year Experimenter N Noise Quiet Task Findings 1959 Wilkinson 12 100 db — -- Same as in ex- Noise had a greater adverse (b) periment (a). effect when knowledge of results was given subject. STUDIES Year Experimenter N Noise Quiet 1958 Auble 32 80 db ----- Britton 1959 Schlichter 121 ----- ----- 1961 McBain 30 ----- ----- 1963 Park Payne 4o 98- 50- 108 db 70 db TABLE 3 USING VARIABLE NOISE Task Findings Number and Name Checking. Performance on examination (biology). Handprinting a sequence of capital letters Each error was signaled by a foot switch. Hard and easy division prob lems . Anxiety is directly related to routine performance under dis tracting noise. The most anxious performed significantly better under noise conditions. No significant difference was found between the performance of the control and experimental group. There were fewer errors under noise conditions. No difference was noted between the perform ance of those with a high or low hypnotic susceptibility. Persons least subject to hyp nosis signaled errors most accurately. No significant effect of noise. Increased variability was noted in the data of those working easy problems. U) to TABLE 3 (Continued) Year Experimenter N Noise Quiet Task 1963 Reiter 38 -20mV -lOmV were pressed when - 5mV the lamp of the OraV same color in a + lmV series of six + 3mV lamps was alight. Findings Detection was superior when noise was present. Level resulting in greater ef fectiveness was -5 to 0 mV. ( j O ■Pr TABLE 4 STUDIES USING VARIABLE AND STEADY NOISE I Year Experimenter N Noise Quiet Task Findings 1959 Woodhead (a) 30 110 db 70 db 1959 Woodhead (b) 18 85 db 95 db 115 db 1961 Sanders 40 75 db 70 db 1963 Kirk Hecht 30 S64.5 db V64.5 db 61 db Hatching of symbols on ten stationary cards with symbols on a moving display, 70 db Same as task for Experiment (a). Performance on the Kraepelln Test and the Bourdon-Wiersma Test. The subjects monitored a cathode ray tube. The noise blast effect was observed in the latency of response for five decisions after noise was presented. Total performance was sig nificantly worse. Level of confidence = 0.02. Bursts of sound at 95 and 115 db caused a significant decrement in performance. Bursts at 85 db failed to show this effect. Varying noise conditions did not have a deleterious ef fect during the first half- hour. The deleterious effect was reflected during the 2nd thirty minutes in increased reaction time. Signal detection was signif icantly better under vari able noise. Quiet and steady noise noise conditions pro duced no difference. 1 U VJl TABLE 5 A STUDY USING STEADY AND INTERMITTENT NOISE Year Experimenter N Noise Quiet Task Findings 196k- Watkins 6 75 db Signaling a flash shown on glass panel. Detection was superior when either type of noise was present only during signal presentation. Quiet and steady or flutter noise had no effect when presented through out the session. uo o\ 37 performance under 100 db noise. Broadbent (1957) reported noise had no effect on simple tasks when presented at 80 and 90 db levels. TOie Broadbent (195*0 hypothesis, the more complex the task, the greater the deleterious effect of loud noise on performance, was examined by Jerlson (1959a, 1959b, 1959c). Using very complex observation and signaling tasks, Jerlson found evidence supporting the hypothesis. Angellno and Mech (1955) presented steady noise at 85 db and demonstrated that it Improved the per formance of a group identified as having a "low adjustment," while it had a negative effect on the'performance of the group Identified as having a "high adjustment." It is interesting to note that Horman (i960) found that some noise facilitated the learning of a series of paired as sociates while noise reported at 75 phons had a deleterious effect on the rate of learning. Teichner, et al. (19^3) reported that steady noise, when presented after a previ ous level of noise, seemed to affect performance according to the degree of change from the original level. It ap pears that the effect of steady noise is related to the difficulty of the task, personality traits, previous auditory experience, and fatigue. Auble and Britton (1958) reported that anxiety was directly related to routine performance when subjects working under variable noise with an average db level of 80. Schlichter (1959) reported that variable noise had no effect on learning or performance on examinations. McBain (1961) reported fewer errors in the handprinting of letters when variable noise was presented. Unfortunately, both Schlichter and McBain failed to report the mean db level of the noise used in their studies. Park and Payne (1963) using noise which varied from 93 db to 108 db found no effect attributable to noise whether hard or easy divi sion problems were administered to their subjects. This finding challenged the Broadbent hypothesis stated above. Reiter (1963) reported better performance on a simple task when noise was held to a minimum variation. It appears that performance under variable noise is related to per sonality traits, the type of task, and the degree of varia tion of the noise stimulus. Woodhead (1959a, 1959b) reported the effect of var iable noise compared to steady noise. She indicated that a definite deleterious effect on performance was noted when the variable noise presented had a mean of 95 db, 110 db, or 115 db. No decrement in performance was noted when bursts of noise with a mean of 85 db were presented. Sanders (1961) compared the effect of variable noise with a mean of 75 db with steady noise at 70 db. No effect was observed on the accuracy of responses during the study. However, an increase in reaction time was observed after the first half-hour. Kirk and Hecht (1963) found signal 39 detection to be better under variable noise with a mean db level of 64.5 than detection of signals under quiet or steady noise conditions of 64.5 db level. The examination of the effects of steady and Inter mittent noise at 75 db level by Watkins (1964) demonstrated that signal detection was most accurate when the noise was presented only at the time of the signal, whether the noise was steady or Intermittent. Past research of performance under variable noise thus revealed: (a) a decrement when the db level Is above 95, (b) an Increased reaction time when the mean db level Is 75, and (c) an Increment In performance when the mean noise level is 64.5 db. Most previous research was restricted to small samples derived from groups which were not representative of the general population. Subjects were drawn from cap tive groups. A number of researchers failed tp control variables which may have been correlates in the deleterious effect attributed to noise. ftiose researchers who have attempted to control variables which may have been correlates in the impairment of performance under auditory stress sometimes failed to check the validity or reliability of their criterion. Another problem area of past research Is the definition of "quiet." In some experiments "quiet" was not defined. In one experiment "quiet" was defined as 40 "ordinary surroundings." "Quiet" was described by one ex perimenter as 83 decibels and 77*5 decibels. One researcher defined "quiet" as 70 decibels. Ohe failure to define "quiet” or to come to some agreement as to its meaning may be one explanation for the apparent disagreement in the findings of current research. The Research Hypotheses The present study was designed to test the follow ing hypotheses regarding the effect of auditory stress on the performance of an intellectual task by the 11th grade students of the Nogales High School. The dependent vari able in all Instances was the Mifference score" described in Chapter I. Hypotheses regarding correlation were made in terms of the effectiveness of performance rather than in terms of the reversed 3cale of the difference scores. In operational (as distinct from null) form these hypotheses were: Hypothesis 1: Loud Intermittent or steady noise (85 db) produces a greater decrement in Intellectual per formance than intermittent or steady noise at 75 db. This hypothesis is supported by the findings of Angellno and Mech (1955)* Auble and Britton (1958)* and the post hoc findings of Griffiths (1959). Wie hypothesis is not supported by the data of Smith (1951), Broadbent (1957a), and Woodhead (1959b). 41 n Hypothesis 2: Intermittent loud noise (85 db) presented 50 per cent of the time has a greater deleterious effect on the level of Intellectual performance than steady loud noise of the same decibel level. Although there was no research observed supporting this prediction. It appears to be generally accepted that Intermittent noise Is more distracting than steady noise. No study was observed which did not support the hypothesis. Hypothesis 3: Intermittent or steady noise at 73 db level has no effect on Intellectual performance, lftis hypothesis Is supported by the studies of Broadbent (1957b), and Watkins (1964). No study was observed which did not support the hypothesis. Hypothesis 4: Subjects with IQs above one standard deviation above the mean will show less loss In performance under loud noise conditions than will subjects with IQs be low one standard deviation above the mean. No experimental data were available which bear directly on this prediction. The subject with low ability Is commonly believed to be more easily distracted. Hypothesis 5: Female subjects function more ef fectively under loud noise on intellectual tasks than male subjects. Although there was no research supporting this prediction, It appears to be generally accepted that fe males of the high school level tend to exhibit better self-control than males of the same academic level. 42 Smith (1951) found no difference In performance attribut able to sex difference. Hypothesis 6: The performance of subjects Identi fied as "blaming no one" perform better on an Intellectual task under loud noise conditions than those Identified as "blaming self" or "blaming others." No research was found dealing vilth this prediction. However, It seems reasonable to expect that an Individual who does not find It necessary to ascribe responsibility to a distraction will be able to function more effectively under 3tress conditions. Hypothesis 7* Subjects with superior reading abil ity perform with greater efficiency on an Intellectual task under loud noise conditions than subjects with low reading ability. No experimental study has been reported dealing directly with this hypothesis. However, it is generally believed that the good reader is not as easily distracted as the poor reader. Hypothesis 8: The objective data will support the subjective report of the subject regarding the effect of noise on his performance, Schllchter (1959) reported a trend In his data which supports this hypothesis. Hypothesis 9: There is a positive correlation be tween educational goals and the level of performance of an Intellectual task under loud noise (85 db) conditions. No experimental study has reported data relevant to this hypothesis. However, a subject with a high educational 43 goal would be expected to demonstrate a greater Interest in performing well on an Intellectual task than would a sub ject with no Interest in a college education. Hypothesis 10: There is a positive correlation be tween the subject's report regarding his personality traits and the collective teacher-Judges evaluation of the sub ject's personality traits. No research was observed which deals directly with this problem. Hypothesis 11: Intellectual performance under loud noise conditions has a positive correlation with the level of worry or anxiety. It is commonly believed that the more anxious individual will have a higher level of motivation to perform when under stress. ThlB hypothesis is supported by the findings of Auble and Britton (1958). Hypothesis 12: There is a negative correlation between the performance of an intellectual task under loud noise conditions and the degree of friendliness. There was no research bearing directly on this hypothesis. However, it is generally believed that the extrovert type personal ity tends to be more affected by distraction than the Individual who has been described as introverted. Hypothesis 13: Intellectual performance under loud noise conditions is negatively correlated with personality adjustment. It appears reasonable to expect an individual who is not concerned with his environment to perform more effectively under stress. This hypothesis is supported by the data of Angelino and Mech (1955)• No experimental data were observed which did not support the hypothesis. CHAPTER III METHOD AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The present chapter describes the selection of sub jects and teacher-Judges, as well as the preparation of the student questionnaire and the Instructor questionnaire. In addition, the production of the sound tapes, equipment used In the production of sound, and the method of measurement of sound are described. The experimental design is also presented In this chapter. Selection of Subjects The 281 subjects who participated In this study were Junior students at Nogales High School. The adminis tration reported that these students had been placed in English III classes quasi-randomly. The criteria for placement were reading ability and the recommendation of the English department. Classes on five levels of reading are reported. These are identified as follows: (a) the non-reading level, hereafter referred to as (0); (b) the below-average reading level, hereafter referred to as (4); (c) the average reading level, hereafter referred to as (6); and (d) the above-average and superior reading levels combined, hereafter referred to as (8+). These were local labels and hence are used in this report. 46 Criteria for Inclusion in the study were: (a) some reading ability, i.e., the non-readers of level (0) were excluded, and (b) permission of the parents for their childito be a subject in the study. ThiB permission was obtained by sending a letter to each parent (Bee Appendix C) which allowed the parent to withdraw his child from the study if he chose. Only 18 did so. Five classes were selected randomly from a total of six possible on both the (4) and (6) reading levels. There were four classes on the 8+ reading level. lSie largest of these four classes was divided by a random method, creating five groups on the 8+ level. In order to equate the number of male3 and females in each subgroup, the males and females in each class were numbered. The odd numbered males and females formed one subgroup while the even numbered males and females formed a second subgroup within each of the fifteen subgroups used in this study. Although the unavoidable use of classes arbitrarily defined the number of subjects in each group, it made possible differential treatment which facilitated the carrying out of the present experiment during the regular class periods. A class from each of the three reading levels (4, 6, and 8+) were combined to form the control group and the four experimental groups. These composite groups, hereafter referred to as the control and experimental groups, are presented in Table 8, Three hundred sixty-nine students were enrolled in the classes selected for this study. Fifty-six students were not permitted to serve as subjects by their parents or were absent on the first day of the experiment. IViirty- two additional students failed to appear on the Becond day of the experiment. The number of students completing the study was 281. The age range was 14 to 18. The mean age was 16.25. Table 6 presents the number of male and female students on each reading level. Selection of Teacher-Judges The criterion for a teacher-Judge was that he have in hl3 class the subject to be evaluated. Three Judges evaluated each subject on the following items: (a) level of anxiety, (b) rapport with fellow students, (c) direction of aggression, and (d) personality adjustment. Item (c) proved to be of no use since nearly 95 pei' cent of the ratings on this point were marked "blames no one." That is to say that in the opinion of the teacher- Judges, the subjects, when distracted, tended neither to blame themselves nor to attribute blame to others. What ever the implications of this, their responses here exhibited insufficient varLance for the purposes of cor relation or other analytic use. One Judge was selected from the English department, 48 TABLE 6 SUBJECTS OF THE STUDY Reading Level Male Female Total (4) 54 35 89 (6) 6 5 44 109 (8+) _J6 _ 4 7 8 3 Total 155 126 281 49 a second from the History department, while a third was chosen from Physical Education, if possible. When the sub ject did not take Physical Education, one of his other teachers served as a Judge. The Student Questionnaire The student questionnaire was developed one month prior to the date of the study. The questions were devel oped in conference with 11th grade high school students in order to avoid a semantic problem. Specific wording was accepted when there was unanimous agreement regarding the information desired. The student questionnaire is presented in Appendix B. Each question allowed a choice of three dif ferent responses. A response to item one under each of the five questions was given the value of 1, while a response to item two wa3 given a value of 2, and a response to item three a value of 3, to facilitate the comparison of data. The student questionnaire allowed the subject to evaluate his own personality traits. Items evaluated were: (a) level of worry, (b) number of friends, (c) direction of blame, (d) ability to get along. A fifth question allowed the student to evaluate the effect of noise on hi3 test performance. The Teacher Questionnaire The Teacher questionnaire was prepared one month prior to the date of the experiment, Actual drafting of the questions followed conferences with teachers to avoid semantic problems. Actual wording was accepted when all teachers Interviewed were In agreement a3 to the Informa tion desired. Hie Teacher questionnaire Is presented In Appendix A. Each Judge's response to Item one under each question was given a value of 3. A response to Item two was given a value of 6, and a response to Item three was given a value of 9. A minimum score of 9 and a maximum score of 27 was possible for each question. TOils allowed reflection In the raw score of the opinion of each of the Judges. Ihree teacher-judges, working separately, evalu ated each subject. Ifce Items evaluated were: (a) level of anxiety, (b) peer relationship, (c) direction of blame, and (d) personality adjustment. Production and Presentation of Noise The tape for the production of steady and inter mittent playground noise was prepared by William S. Palmerston.1 The steady production of playground noise presented no problem. The creation of a tape which pres ented intermittent sound randomly did present some prob lems. Smith (1951) presented random sound 50 per cent of the time during the experiment which examined the effect of Intermittent sound. His basic unit was ten seconds. His ^Of the National Broadcasting Company, Burbank, California. A duplicate set of Sound tapes has been de posited with the dissertation at Ann Arbor, Michigan. maximum presentation was 50 seconds in length. It was decided to choose the same basic unit as Smith. Sound would be presented randomly, but a record would be preserved to facilitate replication of the present study. See Table 7* The basic unit is ten seconds in dur ation. The maximum presentation equals that of the Smith study. Hie table of random numbers presented by Edwards (1959) was used to select 90 ten-second periods. Vlhen 90 ten-second periods are added the sum is equal to 15 min utes . This equals one-half of the time period allowed for the presentation of the independent variable. Equipment The sound equipment used in this study was supplied by Henry B. Wilder, President of California Sound Company, Los Angeles, California. Charles Webber, a Sound engineer of the same company, aided in the selection of equipment. The tape recorder was an Ampex, Model 251-2. The amplifier was an ALTEC, Model 3^2 B. Two Dukane 12" speakers were placed at the rear of the testing room. The two at the front of the room were ALTEC 601C, the HP Atten was 3et at 0. The speakers at the front were out of phase with those at the rear. Thus there was no sound level build up. The speakers were placed equidistant from each other and from the side walls. This distance was 9 feet 2 52 TABLE 7 PRESENTATION OF INTERMITTENT NOISE Begin End Duration Min.Sec. Min.Sec. (Seconds) Condition 0 - 0 0- — 20 20 Noise 0 - 20 0 - 30 10 Quiet 0 - 30 1 - 10 40 Noise 1 - 10 1 - 20 10 Quiet 1 - 20 1 - 40 20 Noise 1 - 40 1 - 50 10 Quiet 1 - 50 2 - 0 10 Noise 2 - 0 2 - 20 20 Quiet 2 - 20 2 - 40 20 Noise 2 - 40 2 - 50 10 Quiet 2 - 50 3 30 40 Noise 3 - 30 3 - 50 20 Quiet 3 - 50 . 4 - 0 10 Noise 4 - 0 4 - 50 50 Quiet 4 - 50 5 - 00 10 Noise 5 - 00 5 - 10 10 Quiet 5 - 10 5 - 50 40 Noise 5 - 50 6 - 10 20 Quiet 6 - 10 6 - 20 10 Noise 6 — 20 6 - 30 10 Quiet TABLE 7 (Continued) 53 Begin End Duration Min.Sec. Min.Sec. (Seconds) Condition 6 - 30 7 - 00 30 Noise *7 - 00 7 - 10 10 Quiet 7 - 10 7 - 50 4o Noise 7 - 50 8 - 00 10 Quiet • 8 - 00 8 - 20 20 Noise 8 - 20 8 - 40 20 Quiet 8 - 40 8 - 50 10 Noise 8 - 50 9 - 00 10 Quiet 9 - 00 9 - 10 10 Noise 9 - 10 9 - 40 30 Quiet 9 - 4o 10 - 00 20 Noise 10 - 00 10 • s 10 10 Quiet 10 - 10 10 - 20 10 Noise 10 - 20 10 - 30 10 Quiet 10 - 30 10 - 50 20 Noise 10 - 50 11 - 00 10 Quiet 11 MS 00 11 - 10 10 Noise 11 - 10 n : SM 20 O 1 Quiet 11 20 n - 30 10 Noise 11 - 30 l i - 4o 10 Quiet 11 — 40 l i — 50 10 Noise TABLE 7 (Continued) 54 Begin End Duration Min.Sec. Min.Sec. (Seconds) Condition 11 - 50 12 - 10 20 Quiet 12 - 10 12 - 20 10 Noise 12 - 20 12 - 50 30 Quiet 12 - 50 13 - 10 20 Noise 13 - 10 13 - 30 . 20 Quiet 13 - 30 13 - 50 20 Noise 13 - 50 14 - 00 10 Quiet 14 - 00 14 - 30 30 Noise 14 - 30 14 - 40 10 Quiet 14 - 4o 15 - 00 20 Noise 15 - 00 15 - 10 10 Quiet 15 - 10 15 - 20 10 Noise 15 - 20 15 - 50 30 Quiet 15 - 50 16 - 20 30 Noise 16 - 20 16 - 30 10 Quiet 16 - 30 16 - 50 20 Noise 16 - 50 17 - 10 20 Quiet 17 - 10 17 - 20 10 Noise 17 - 20 17 - 30 10 Quiet 17 - 30 17 - 50 20 Noise 17 _ 50 18 _ 10 20 Quiet 55 TABLE 7 (Continued) Begin End Duration Min.Sec. Min.Sec. (Seconds) Condition 18 - 10 18 - 20 10 Noise 18 - 20 19 - 00 40 Quiet 19 - 00 19 - 30 30 Noise 19 - 30 20 - 00 30 Quiet 20 - 00 20 - 20 20 Noise 20 - 20 20 - 30 10 Quiet 20 - 30 21 - 00 30 Noise 21 - 00 21 - 10 10 Quiet 21 - 10 21 - 30 20 Noise 21 - 30 21 - 50 20 Quiet 21 - 50 22 - 00 10 Noise 22 - 00 22 - 10 10 Quiet 22 - 10 22 - 20 10 Noise 22 - 20 22 - 50 30 Quiet 22 - 50 23 - 00 10 Noise 23 - 00 23 - 40 40 Quiet 23 - 40 24 - 00 20 Noise 24 - 00 24 - 20 20 Quiet 24 - 20 24 - 40 20 Noise 24 - 40 25 - 10 30 Quiet 25 10 25 20 10 Noise TABLE 7 (Continued) 56 Begin End Duration Min.Sec. Min.Sec. (Seconds) Condition 25 - 20 25 - 30 10 Quiet 25 - 30 25 - 40 10 Noise 25 - 40 26 - 00 20 Quiet 2 6 - 00 26 - 10 10 Noise 26 - 10 26 - 30 20 Quiet 26 - 30 26 - 40 10 Noise 26 - 40 27 - 00 20 Quiet 27 - 00 27 - 20 20 Noise 27 - 20 28 - 10 50 Quiet 26 - 10 29 - 00 50 Noise 29 - 00 29 - 10 10 Quiet 29 - 10 29 - 20 10 Noise 29 — 20 30 - 00 40 Quiet Inches* See Figure 1, page 58. The sound level was measured by a Sound Level Meter, Type 1551-A, manufactured by General Radio Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The setting when attempting to measure the mean level of sound was: Weighting 20 kc, Reaction "Slow." When measuring the maximum and minimum decibel levels, the reaction setting was set at "Fast." The locations of the sound meter when readings were made are shown In Figure 1. The locations are number 1 to 8. Positions 2, 4, 5 and 7 w e eight and a half feet from the face of the speakers. Positions 1, 3, 6 and 8 are fourteen feet from the front of the speakers. When sound was presented at a mean level of ap proximately 85 decibels, the "Fast" reading gave a decibel range from 80 to 94 db. The decibel range was 69 to 82 when sound was presented at a mean level of approximately 75 db. Sound levels were prechecked and the equipment marked before the testing session. Very little adjustment was necessary at the beginning of the testing session. Eight readings of the sound level were taken during each testing session. See sound level readings In Appendix H. The Testing Room The testing room was a standard classroom at the Nogales High School. The size of this classroom was 30 x 30 58 Figure 1.— Diagram of Room Used For Experiment b x y ape Recorder Speakers Amplifier owd-oflSeats I Work **1 Table ^Speakers Legend: 1 Centimeter r 2 feet * measured• ** Location of positions where the sound level was Letters are used to identify the walls of the testing room. 59 with a ceiling height of 10 feet. The ceiling was covered with acoustical tile. The floor was a slab floor covered with vinyl tile. Walls (a), (b), and (c) (Figure 1) of the room were constructed as follows: Wood studs, button board lath covered with plaster. Wall (d) was constructed as the walls described above with the following exceptions. Hie exterior was covered with brick veneer. Windows extended across the length of the wall above eye level. A heavy drape covered this wall except for the exterior door to the classroom. Hie Interior of the room contained 35 seats which were arranged in five rows. Each row contained seven seats which faced toward wall (b), and each was equipped with a writing board. A work table was located near the center of wall (a). A 3mall table was located in the corner of wall (a) and (b). The sound equipment wa3 located on this cor ner table. The position of the speakers was described in the preceding section. Experimental Procedure At the beginning of the testing period, the members of the class to be tested were in their regular classroom. Here males were separated from females and numbers were randomly assigned to the individuals in each group. Then, the even-numbered males and females were sent to the ex perimental testing room, while the odd-numbered subjects 60 remained in the classroom. In both the classroom and the experimental room, one-half of the males and one-half of the females received Form M of the DAT Verbal Reasoning Test. The remaining half of the males and females received Form L. Forty-eight hours later, the group which had been tested with noise in the experimental room remained in the classroom for testing under quiet conditions. Hie group tested in the classroom during the first session, went to the experimental room for the second testing session. The alternate form of the DAT was administered during the second session. This testing plan avoids serial effect due to order of test form or order of testing situation. The subjects received the following message before the standard directions for the DAT Verbal Reasoning Test were read: "Today you are taking part in an Important re search program. We are studying the effects of sound on your ability to perform on a reasoning test. We know that each of you will do his best. The Information gained from this study may prove helpful to you as you continue your educational program. TOie result of this test will not be shared with the personnel office since our only purpose Is to determine the effect of noise on student performance." A model of the testing procedure is given in Table 8. The left-hand column gives the group characteristic. Tftie next column indicates the subgroups which were tested at separate hours. The third column reflects reading I TABLE 8 TESTING MODEL Group Characteristic Reading Subgroup Level day & hour Male N Female N 1st Testing Session 2nd Testing Session Regular Experimental hegular Experimental Classroom Classroom Classroom Classrocm Gr6up I I-a 4 4 0 L* M Control M & V • N = 53 8 AM 4 5 1 M L 6 1 1 L M 6 2 2 M L I-b 4 3 1 L M M & W 8 AM 4 5 1 M L ' 6 5 2 L M 6 4 2 M L I-c 8+ 1 2 L M T & Th 8 AM 8+ 2 2 M L I-d 8* 2 2 L M T & Th 8 AM 84- 2 1 M L *Note: L and M refer to the two alternate forms of the DAT Verbal Reasoning Test. o\ TABLE 8 (Continued) Group Subgroup Reading Male Female 1st Testing Session 2nd Testing Session Characteristic day & hour Level N N hegular Experimental Regular Experimental Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Group II Experimental Intermittent Noise at 75 db level N = 61 H a 4 3 2 L M M & V 10 AM 4 2 3 M L 6 3 3 L M 6 4 3 M L lib 4 5 2 L M M & W 10 AM 4 3 2 M L 6 4 2 L M 6 5 i 2 M L lie 8+ 2 1 L M T & Th 11 AM 8+ 2 1 M L lid 8+ 3 0 L M T & Th 11 AM 8+ 3 1 M L cr> to t TABLE 8 (Continued) Group Subgroup Reading Male Female 1st Testing Session 2nd Testing Session Characteristic day & hour Level N N Regular Experimental Regular Experimental Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Group III Experimental Intermittent Noise at 85 db level N « 73 Ilia 4 3 2 L M M & W 9 AM 4 5 2 M L 6 6 2 L M 6 4 2 M L Illb 4 3 2 L M M & W 9 AM 4 2 3 M L 6 3 3 L M 6 3 2 M L IIIc 8+ 2 4 L M T & Th 12:30 PM 8* 2 6 M L Hid 8+ 2 5 L M T & Th 12:30 PM 8+ 1 4 M L o\ u> TABLE 8 (Continued) Group Characteristic Group IV Experimental Steady Noise at 75 db level N = 46 Subgroup Reading Male Female 1st Testing Session 2nd Testing Session day & hour Level N N Regular Experimental Regular Experimental Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom IVa 4 2 2 L M M & W 11 AM 4 2 1 M L 6 6 2 L - M 6 4 2 M L IVb 4 1 2 L M M & W 11 AM 4 2 2 M L 6 3 2 L M 6 2 2 M L IVc 8t 2 2 L M T & Th 8 AM 8+ 1 2 M L rvd 8+ 1 2 L M T & Th 8 AM 8+ 2 1 M L o\ - F = - TABLE 8 (Continued) Group Subgroup Reading Male Female 1st Testing Session Characteristic day & hour Level N N Regular Experimental Classroom Classroom 2nd Testing Session Regular Experimental Classroom Classroom Group V Experimental Steady Noise at 85 db level N « 48 Va 4 1 2 L M M & V 12:30 PM 4 2 3 M L 6 3 2 L M 6 3 2 M L Vb 4 1 1 L M M & W * 12:30 PM 4 0 1 M L 6 2 3 L M 6 3 2 M L Vc 8+ 2 2 L M T & Th 10 AM 8+ 2 3 M L Vd Sf 1 3 L M T & Th 10 AM 8+ 1 3 M L G \ \S i level. The next two columns give the number of males or females being tested. The remaining columns Indicate the location of testing and the DAT Verbal Reasoning Test form administered. Tests given in the regular classroom under usual noise conditions were supervised by Nogales High School instructors, who were trained to act as testing assistants The testing in the experimental room was under the direc tion of the author of this report. CHAPTER IV PROCESSING OF DATA, HOMOGENEITY OF STUDY GROUPS, AND RELIABILITY OF TEACHER-JUDGE EVALUATIONS In thlo section of the report the preliminary data are presented. The control and the 3tudy groups are ex amined to determine whether they were drawn from the same population. The degree of agreement among teacher-Judgen regarding the personality traits of the aubjectn in alno examined. Tabulation of Raw Data The Intelligence quotient, reading level, sex, and educational goal of each subject are preaented with the other raw experimental data in Appendix E. Processing of Data The raw data were punched on IBM cards at the Social-Behavioral Laboratory of Pacific State Hospital, ani analyzed by computer. This analysis was perl'onried partly at the Health Science:; Computing Facility, University >d California at Loa Angeles, using program BMOuD, and partly at the Computing Center, University of Southern California, using the programs for analysis of variance, one way design, t-7 two way design, and Pearson r. The descriptive data (means, standard deviations, sample sizes, and the like) are presented in Table 9. As shown there, the study groups ranged in size from 46 to 73> due to the use of existing classes of variable size and to the non-participation of some students for various reasons. Homogeneity of Study Groups An examination of the controlled variables (IQ, reading level, and educational goal) reveals great similar ity among the five groups of students who served as sub jects. Bartlett’ 3 te3t, as presented in Senders (1958)> was used to te3t for homogeneity of variance. See Table 10. The statistical test3 did not attain the .01 level in any case and exceeded the .05 level only in the case of the IQ data. This effect wa3 considered immaterial, since analysis of variance 3howed that there was no significant difference among the means (see below). Of particular Interest was the chl-3quare for reading level (0.59), which, with four degrees of freedom, Indicates that the variances of the five 3tudy groups were sufficiently homogeneous for the purposes of analysis of variance . Analyses of variance were therefore performed on the study groups, controlling on IQ, reading level, and educational goal. See Table 11. The (F) for IQ data TABLE 9 ARITHMETIC SCORES AND DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS Group Characteristic I Control II 75 db Inter mittent noise III 85 db Inter mittent noise IV 75 db Steady noise V 85 db Steady noise Total Subjects 53 6l 73 46 48 281 Sex Male 36 39 36 23 21 155 Female 17 22 37 23 27 126 IQ Mean 100.23 100.51 102.30 98.95 100.56 SD 9.31 13.25 13.75 11.72 12.21 Range 83-119 73-128 73-129 84-129 73-145 73-145 Reading Level (4* Mean ,6,8+) 5.77 5.70 6.11 5.96 6.25 5.96 SD l.6o 1.50 1.63 1.55 1.52 1.57 Range 4-8+ 4-8+ 4-8+ 4-8+ 4-8+ 4-8+ Educational Goal (Applied = 0) (College - l) Mean 0.64 0.54 0.66 0.48 0.46 0.57 SD 0.48 0.50 0.48 0.51 0.50 . 0.50 Range 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 o\ VO TABLE 9 (Continued) Group I ' II III IV V 75 db Inter- 85 db Inter- 75 db Steady 85 db Steady Characteristic Control raittent noise raittent noise noise noise Total Instructor Questionnaire Question Mean 1 (Anxiety) 17.21 18.64 17.51 17.93 17.12 17.70 SD 3.44 3.15 2.83 2.72 3.09 3.08 Range 9-24 12-24 12-24 12-24 9-24 9-24 Question Mean 2 (Peer relationship) 17.83 17.44 18.00 17.35 18.00 17.74 SD 2.15 3.09 3.00 2.96 2.55 2.79 Range 12-24 9-24 9-27 12-27 15-24 9-27 Question Mean 3 (Blame) 18.91 19.23 18.74 18.78 18.62 18.86 SD 2.00 2.35 2.68 2.48 2.14 2.36 Range 15-24 15-27 15-24 15-27 15-27 15-27 Question Mean 4 (Adjustment) 18.28 17.26 18.04 17.34 18.10 17.88 SD 2.51 2.56 2.85 2.68 2.68 2.67 Range 12-24 12-24 15-24 12-27 12-27 12-27 fSum of 3 Judges' decisions) (3 points for item 1) (6 points for item 2) (9 points for item 3) o TABLE 9 (Continued) Group Characteristic Control II 75 db Inter mittent noise III IV 85 db Inter- 75 db Steady mittent noise noise 85 db Steady noise Total Student Questionnaire Question 1 (Worry) Mean 2.04 SD 0.61 Range 1-3 Question 2 (Friends) Mean 2.06 SD 0.50 Range 1-3 Question 3 (Blame) Mean 1.98 SD O.69 Range 1-3 Question 4 (Get along) Mean 1.94 SD 0.50 Range 1-3 Question 5 (Effect) Mean --- SD Range --- 2.15 0.73 1-3 2.0 0.4 1-3 2.03 0.87 1-3 1-3 2.37 0.58 1-3 ^1 point for item l) [2 points for Item 2] ,3 points for item 3J 2.14 0.69 1-3 2.22 0.63 1-3 2.07 0.56 1-3 1-3 2.14 0.89 1-3 2.24 0.82 1-3 2.14 0.51 1-3 2.15 0.51 1-3 2.62 0.5$ 1-3 2.35 0,71 2.88 0.61 1-3 2.17 0.67 1-3 2.12 1-i3 2*?§ 0.49 1-3 2.25 U9 2.12 0.82 1-3 I ' M 1-3 2.04 ?:15 2.52 0.65 1-3 --- I TABLE 9 (Continued) Group * Characteristic I Control II 75 db Inter mittent noise III 85 db Inter mittent noise IV 75 db Steady noise V 85 db Steady noise Total IQ 0-88 N 7 11 17 8 5 48 M 50.43 51.73 51.59 51.75 49.20 51.21 SD 5.48 3.68 4.41 3.89 3.16 4.38 89 -113 N 42 40 39 30 38 189 M 49.71 51.00 51.28 53.33 50.32 50.96 SD 6.19 6.12 6.94 5.86 6.86 6.71 114+ N 4 10 17 8 5 44 M 54.12 46.70 47.41 54.12 54.80 49.52 SD 7.79 6.39 6.05 IO.78 8.81 8.42 DAT VR SCORES For all groups N 53 61 73 46 48 281 M 50.13 50.48 50.68 53.05 50.95 50.97 SD 5.55 5.90 5.31 6.86 5.75 5.87 *N denotes the number of subjects in group; M denotes the mean difference score; SD denotes the standard deviation of the difference scores. -j 10 TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF BARTLETT'S TEST FOR HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCE Characteristic df Chi-Square IQ 4 9.87* Reading * Level 4 0.59 Educational * Goal 4 8.42 *Chi-square did not attain the .01 level of slg- nlficance. TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE MEANS OF THREE CONTROLLED VARIABLES Source of Characteristic Variance SS df MS F IQ Between Groups 385.70 4 96.42 Within Groups Total 42087.11 4£47£.81 276 280 152.49 Reading Level Between Groups Within Groups Total 11.70 687.04 6- 98.74 4 276 280 2.92 2.49 Educational Goal Between Groups Within Groups Total 1.86 68.33 76.19 4 276 SOS’ 0.46 0.24 IF 0.63 1.17* * 1.92 #The F-ratlo did not attain the .05 level of sig nificance . 74 was 0.63 (P>.05). The null hypothesis was not rejected. The (P) for reading level was 1.17 (P>.05). The null hypothesis was not rejected. The (F) for educational goal was 1.92 (P>.05). The null hypothesis was not rejected. No significant difference between the means was found be tween the study groups In regard to IQ, reading level, or educational goal, and they were therefore accepted as having been selected from the same population In these respects. Reliability of Teacher Evaluations A large number of Judges were required to provide three evaluations of the personality traits of each sub ject. To avoid the problems produced by the use of 30 many different Judges, It was decided to randomize their Judg ments of the students. One Judgment, of each student was selected by the random method and identified as (A). A second was selected by the same method and identified as (B). lhe third was arbitrarily given the (c) classifica tion. Chi-square tables were prepared which compared (A) and (B), (A) and (C), and (B) and (C) data. A summary of the chi-squares for each personality trait is presented In Table 12. Six of the chi-squares were found to be significant, but when the data of the entire group were considered, the mean C coefficients were found not to be significant. There was a tendency for the teacher-Judges to mark the 75 TABLE 12 SUMMARY OP CHI-SQUARES OF RANDOMLY SELECTED TEACHER-JUDGE EVALUATIONS OF PERSONALITY TRAITS Trait Comparison N df Chi-squares C Anxiety Level A and C 281 4 5.936 0.14 A and B 281 4 7.053 0.16 B and C 281 4 2.556 M = 0.09** 0.13 Peer Relationship A and C 281 4 30.834 0.31 A and B 281 4 5.279* 0.13 B and C 281 4 12.196 M = 0.20** 0.21 Direction of Blame A and C 281 4 6.447* 0.15 A and B 281 4 21.428 0.27 B and C 281 4 11.782* M = 0.20 0.21 * Adjustment Level A and C 281 4 13.004; 0.21 A and B 281 4 12.778 0.21 B and C 281 4 8.645 M = 0.17** 0.20 «* ^Significant at the .05 level. The mean C-coefflcient was not significant. * average level. When extremes were Indicated, very little agreement vias found among the teacher-Judges. Little use was therefore made of their evaluations. The raw data are presented in Appendix D. CHAPTER V EXAMINATION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS In this chapter the Intercorrelation and means of Forms L and M of the DAT Verbal Reasoning Test are examined in order to test their equivalence as far as the present sample was concerned. They were found not to be equivalent, so were adjusted by a method which is described. The ad justed difference scores were then analyzed so as to test the research hypotheses enumerated in the last section of Chapter I, and the results are discussed in this chapter. The unadjusted difference scores were also analyzed in identical fashion, and the results are presented in Ap pendix 0. Equivalence of Tests L and M Since the dependent variable in this study was the difference between scores obtained under quiet conditions and those obtained by the same subjects under noise con ditions, it was necessary to test each subject twice. This called for the use of two equivalent forms of the 3ame psychometric instrument, and forms L and M of the DAT Ver bal Reasoning Test were chosen. At the time this battery of aptitude tests was selected for the present study, comprehensive data as to the equivalence (Interchangeability) 77 of the two forms were not available, but the success of earlier editions of the same battery, the long experience and wide acceptance of the publishers and test-devisers, « and the preliminary results then available, tended to sup port the choice of this test as a suitable Instrument. National norms are to be presented In the fourth DAT manual, which Is now In preparation. The acceptance or rejection of the research hypo theses In this study was contingent upon the demonstrable equivalence of the two tests used. For the present sample of 281 eleventh-grade students the coefficient of correla tion between the two forms was .86, with a standard error of .016, as calculated by: SEr ■ 1 - r2. rtTTT A better estimate of the limits within which the true r might be expected to fall with a .99 level of con fidence Is based on the standard error of Fisher'3 z-function, as calculated by: SE_ ■ 1 • tfT ■-"3 Using this estimate, the true r very probably lies between .816 and .896. This was taken to indicate that, as far as correlation was concerned, the two forms were sufficiently equivalent for judgments on a group basis to be made. The above considerations apply above all to rank-orderj the Inter-form correlation demonstrates that examinees will be placed in very much the same rank-order, no matter which form Is used. However, for full equiva lence, as usually defined, students should also receive the same score, no matter which form is used. This proved not to be the case for the sample used in this study. Non equivalence, in the case of very highly correlated "alter nate forms," is usually adjusted by providing separate norm tables (raw-to-derived score transformations) for the various alternate forms. Here, derived-score tables not being available, raw-score equivalence had to be demons trated or falling that, established by adjusting one of the two forms so as to make the means equal. The 53 students in the control group (who were the only subjects tested on both occasions under quiet conditions) were studied in order to determine whether there was any sig nificant difference between their scores on form3 L and M. The effects of order of administration were offset by the fact that form L was given first to half of them, and form M first to the other half. Both t-tests and sign tests were used to test this, and the sign test (a non- parametric test less sensitive to mean differences than the t-ratio) confirmed the t-testj the L-scores exceeded the M-scores in significantly more than half the cases (P s' .01). Both statistical tests agreed that, if the three reading levels were considered separately, level (4) 80 exhibited no significant difference between forms L and M. The hypothesis of no difference between the overall mean f scores on L and on M was rejected at the .01 level of con fidence because of the preponderance of higher L-scores on levels (6) and (84-). See Table 13. TABLE 13 TEST OF THE EQUIVALENCE OF FORMS L AND M OF THE DAT VERBAL REASONING TEST IN THE CONTROL GROUP Direction of Differences Reading Level L>M M>L L ■ m N 4 9 9 2 20 6 14 4 1 19 8+ 11 2 1 14 Total 34 15 4 53 As this table shows, the scores on the two forms were un equal in 49 of the cases. Thus, half of these, or 24.5, would be expected, under the hypothesis of no difference, to differ In one direction and half in the other. The M- scores, however, exceeded the L-scores in only 15 cases. Since there are more than 25 differences, the normal curve may, as Siegel (1956) points out, be used to approximate the binomial distribution. In this case: z 3 15.5 - 24.5 « 9^£ - 2.571. 0.5 1^9 3.5 81 This corresponds to a probability of .0102, or very nearly the .01 level of confidence. Since the inter-form correlation was acceptably high, the existence of a significant mean difference in the control group between forms L and M was taken to be indicative of an approximately constant difference between the forms, due to form L's being easier for the average student participating in this study. A correction, equal to the mean difference between the forms as observed in the control group, was therefore added to all M-scores. This mean difference was 180 53, or, to four places of decimals, 3.3962. The difference scores (those showing the differences between scores obtained under quiet and. those obtained under noise conditions) were adjusted ac cordingly. Tests of the Hypotheses The research hypotheses involving these adjusted difference scores as the dependent variable were then tested by analysis of variance methods; the results are presented below in tabular form, and discussed in the accompanying text. As confirmation of the validity of the procedure described above, the raw or uncorrected difference scores were subjected to precisely the same statistical tests. The resulting analyses of variance are presented in 82 Appendix 0. The effect of the correction was to reduce all variances in general (because the L and N means were brought together), and to reduce both the between-group and the withln-group variances by remarkably similar pro portions. This effect was to be anticipated, but had, of i course, to be verified In all cases; the observed inter form differences would indeed appear to be mainly attribut able, as assumed, to a constant bias. The raw (uncorrected) difference scores are pres ented in Appendix E, beside the original L- and M-scores, The analyses presented in Appendix Q show that in no case did any F-ratio attain the .05 level of significance. Thus, not one of the hypotheses tested by analysis of var iance of the raw (unadjusted) differences showed any sig nificant differential effects of noise. The hypotheses so tested were numbers H(l) through H(8). The remaining hypotheses concerned correlation coefficients rather than differences between means, and will be discussed simul taneously with the results obtained from the adjusted dif ference scores (see section below, entitled Correlational Results). Turning to the adjusted difference scores, Tables 14 through 20 present the tests of the first eight hypo theses. These hypotheses, described more fully at the end of Chapter XI, will here be restated in null form and rather more briefly: 83 TABLE 14 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ADJUSTED DIFFERENCE SCORES ACHIEVED UNDER QUIET, 751, 851, 75S, AND 85S db LEVELS Source of Variation SS DF MS F Between Groups 256.369 4 64.092 1.884* Within Groups 9391.199 276 34.026 Total 9647.568 280 *The F-ratio nificance. did not attain the .05 level of sig- **S denotes steady noise, I intermittent. TABLE 15 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ADJUSTED DIFFERENCE SCORES ACHIEVED UNDER QUIET, 751, 851, 75S and 85S db LEVELS* Level N Mean SD Quiet 53 50.132 5.550 751 61 50.482 5.904 851 73 50.685 5.307 75S 46 53.048 6.857 85S 48 50.950 5.751 *S denotes steady noise, I intermittent. 84 TABLE 16 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ADJUSTED DIFFERENCE SCORES OF SUBGROUPS WITH IQ's (0-88), (89-113), AND (114+) Group and Condition Source of Variance SS DF MS I Control II 751 III 851 IV 75S V 85S Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total 7.551 1594.209 rmrrjm 2 3.775 oai8 >0 31.884 224.957 2 112.479 3.496 1866.204 £8 32.176 2091.161 1496.058 45 33.246 ISSUES? ** 210.570 2 105.285 4.056 1817.048 JO 25.958 2027.619 72 66.660 2 33.330 0.699 2049.376 43 47.660 211b *# 58.565 2 29.283 0.881 fidence. The F-ratio did not attain the .05 level of con- This F-ratio attained the .05 level of confidence (but not the .01 level). 85 TABLE 17 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ADJUSTED DIFFERENCE SCORES OF MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS Group and Condition Source of Variance SS DF MS I Control II 751 III 851 IV 75S V 85s Between Groups 28.217 1 28.217 0.915 8 M -85* Within Groups Total Between Groups 1.506 .1 1.506 0.043* 2089.655 52 35.418 2091.161 60 Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total 6.459 2021.160 2BS7.M5 8.195 6.459 0.227 28.467 8.195 0.171* 2107.842 44 47.905 2mi'35 45 0.179 1554.445 0.179 0.005 46 33.792 w *The F-ratio did not attain the .05 level of significance. 86 TABLE 18 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ADJUSTED DIFFERENCE SCORES OF SUBGROUPS DETERMINED BY DIRECTION OF BLAME AS INDICATED ON STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES Group and Condition Source of Variance SS DF MS I Control II 751 III 851 IV 75S V 85S Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total 9.512 1592.248 91.264 >.8< Between Groups 81.630 Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total s n e 48.575 1506.04 I5^T 1945.989 20 2027.0X9 72 35.300 2080.736 .049 45 755? S7 4.756 31.845 45.632 34.481 40.815 27.800 17.650 48.389 24.288 33.468 0.149 1.323 1.468 0.365 0.726 *The F-ratio did not attain the .05 level of significance. 87 TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ADJUSTED DIFFERENCE SCORES OF SUBGROUPS DETERMINED BY READING LEVEL Group and Condition Source of Variance SS DF MS I Control II 751 III 851 IV 75S V 85S Between Groups 78.899 39.950 1.313 Within Groups Total 1521.860 £0 30.437 lboi.760 52 Between Groups 134.343 2 67.171 1.991* 1956.818 58 33.738 2091.101 00 Within Groups Total Between Groups 12.173 Within Groups Total 2015.446 L5. 2627.0I9 Between Groups 80.879 Within Groups 203* Total 211? 037 43. 7035 55 6.086 0.211 28.792 40.440 0.854* 47.329 Between Groups 24.290 Within Groups Total 1530.334 1554.0 2 ' 4 2 12.145 0.357 45 34.007 The F-ratio did not attain the .05 level of significance. 88 TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ADJUSTED DIFFER ENCE SCORES OF SUBJECTS REPORTING THE EFFECT OF NOISE ON THEIR PERFORMANCE Group and Condition Source of Variance SS DF MS F II 751 Between Groups 86.891 2 43.445 1.257* Within Groups Total 2004.270 269r;iii $ 34.556 III 851 Between Groups 23.550 2 11.775 # 0.411 Within Groups Total 2004.068 £627.519 # 28.630 IV 75S Between Groups 119.940 2 59.970 1.292* Within Groups Total 1996.096 511bV6S>' 46.421 V 85S Between Groups 26.965 2 13.482 0.397* Within Groups Total 1527.659 IW t . W i 33.948 #The F-ratio did not attain the .05 level of sig nificance . 89 H(l): there is no general difference between the effects of noise at 85 db and those of noise at 75 db, whether steady or intermittent. This hypothesis, as Table 14 shows, could not be rejected. H(2): there is no general difference between the effects of steady and intermittent noise at the 85 db level. As Table 14 also shows, this hypothesis could not be rejected. H(3); noise at 75 db, whether 3teady or inter mittent, has no effect on performance, when com pared with that obtained under "quiet" conditions. Again, Table 14 gave no indication that this hypo thesis could be rejected. Table 15 presents the relevant means and standard deviations. H(4): subjects at different £Q levels will show no differences in their performance under the various noise conditions. For this hypothesis the subjects were divided into three IQ levels— low (88-), average (89-113)» and high (114+), the Average" level consisting of those lying be tween the sample mean t one sample standard deviation, as measured by the California Test of Mental Maturity Short Form. The control group was included for comparison, 90 although It was not tested under a noise condition on either occasion. This was the only hypothesis, of the eight tested by analysis of variance, which yielded a significant re sult, and the only one in which the adjustment of the raw scores caused any change in the significance of the dif ferences . As Table 16 shows, two of the F-ratlos attained the .05 level of significance, though both fell short of the .01 level. It is Interesting to note that the differential reaction was to the Intermittent noise in both cases, al though the F-ratio is larger for 85 than for 75 db. Table 21 shows the means, sample sizes, and standard deviations for these two groups. It seems necessary, therefore, par tially to reject H(4), to the extent that, while steady TABLE 21 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE ADJUSTED DIFFERENCE SCORES OBTAINED BY STUDENTS AT EACH OF THREE IQ LEVELS UNDER INTERMITTENT NOISE AT 75 db AND 85 db Group and Condition IQ Level N Mean SD XI (751) 88- 11 53.688 4.073 89-113 40 50.321 6.195 114+ 10 47.379 4.757 III (851) 88- 17 51.388 5.070 89-93 39 51.717 5.518 114+ 17 47.612 3.945 91 noise (even If loud) did not affect these students' per formance , Intermittent noise did do so, having a more noticeable effect on those with the higher IQ's. This re sult is to some extent confirmed by the results obtained using the raw (unadjusted) differences, which yielded F- ratios of 2.400 for group II (751) and 2.535 for group III (85I), as shown in Appendix G. These are both in the vicinity of the 10 per cent level of significance, so that the original results were merely sharpened by, rather than entirely an artifact of, the adjustment of the raw scores. When the study groups were tested for homogeneity of variance of the classiflcatory variables, Including IQ levels, it was found (see Chapter III; above) that their IQ variances differed at the .05 level. Since a subsequent Analysis of Variance of the group IQ-means revealed no significant differences among them, and since the dependent variable in the study itself was to be the DAT-VR differ ence scores, not the IQ's, this result of the Bartlett test was believed to be insufficient grounds for rejecting the samples. Most of the experimental results, as presented in tables 14 through 20, tended to support this decision, as did the Analysis of Variance of the raw difference scores when classified by IQ (Appendix G). The adjusted difference scores, however, did give rise to moderately significant (.05 level) differences 92 among the means when the subjects were grouped by IQ level. This result, being exceptional in terms of the correlates used in the study, called for further Investigation. The question here seemed to be: to what could the obtained sig nificant differences be attributed? In statistical terms: were the F-ratios obtained from the 751 and 851 groups (Table 16) due to an interaction between the intermittent noise levels and the IQ levels? Kiere were three levels of intermittent noise: (a) none, (b) 751, and (c) 851. As Table 14 shows, the general Analysis of Variance, performed without regard to any sub- classiflcatory variable, yielded an F-ratlo far from sig nificant. (With 4 and 276 degrees of freedom F would have to be in the vicinity of 2.40 to attain even the 5 per cent level of significance.) To be conservative, therefore, the two steady-nolse groups were excluded, a3 possibly exerting a masking effect, and the remaining three groups were studied by Analysis of Variance techniques, using a design appropriate to a situa tion Involving two factors (IQ and noi3e levels), with ' replications (more than one subject per cell or factor- combinatlon). The results are presented in Table 22 and yield the following conclusions: (a) As before (Table 14), there are no significant differences among the groups due to noise alone. In fact, 93 TABLE 22 EFFECTS OF NOISE AT QUIET, 751 AND 851 LEVELS ON SUBJECTS AT THREE IQ LEVELS Source SS DF MS F P* IQ Levels 174.334 2 87.167 2.927 NS Noise Levels 3.534 2 1.767 0.059 NS Interaction 186.127 4 46.532 1.563 NS Between Cells 363.995 8 45.500 1.526 NS Within Cells 5270.472 177 29.777 - - Total 5634.467 185 30.457 - - *With 2 and 177 DF the 5 per cent level requires an F of 3.05; with 4 and 177, of 2.42; and with 8 and 177> of 1.99. 94 the F-ratio Is less than 1.0, showing that noise had vir tually no differential effect on their performance— the results obtained in Table 16 were not due to noise in it self, as was also found in Table 14. (b) The interaction between the IQ levels and the intermittent noise levels was also far from significant. There was no meaningful differential reaction among the IQ subgroupings to the various noise levels. (c) The main effect, performance differences ob servable when the subjects were grouped by IQ levels, also fell short of the .05 level, but did account for most of the between-cell variance. (d) The between-cell variance was itself insig nificant, since it did not even attain the 10 per cent level. (e) The apparent significance of the differences among the IQ groups as presented in Table 16 was only moderate (5 per cent level) and, such as it was, was due to their being combined (in the one-way analysis) with the other effects, notably the interaction between noise levels and IQ levels. When each of the experimental groups was consid ered separately, as in Table 16, the combination of these effects produced differences in the case of the 751 and 851 groups which were of moderate significance, but when the two main effects and their interaction were 95 disentangled, none proved significant. Classification of the subjects Into noise-level groups showed, as before, none but trivial differences among the resulting group means. Subclassification of these noise-level groups Into IQ-level subgroups produced both direct effects and Inter action effects, neither significant when considered sepa rately, but showing some tendency toward conjoint sig nificance . H(5): there is no difference between the scores of male and female subjects when tested under the various experimental conditions (including the "quiet” conditions). As seen from Table 17, all five P-ratios fall far short of the .05 level— all are in fact less than 1.0. H(5) was therefore not rejected. H(6): there is no difference, in their reactions to noise conditions, between subjects who report that when angry they blame no one, those who re port that they blame others, and those who re port that they blame themselves ("Direction of Blame"). As Table 18 shows, no P-ratio attained the .05 level of significance, so that H(6) could not be rejected. H.(7): there is no difference, under any of the experimental conditions, between subjects classified as superior, average, and below average In reading ability. Table 19 shows that this hypothesis could not be rejected. This would seem to imply that there is a rather low correlation between the reported IQ's and the criteria that were used by the school in assigning the students to reading levels. H(8): the students' subjective reports of the effects of noise on their performance will not be borne out by the objective results. As shown in Table 20, ho F-ratio attained the .05 level of significance, so that H(8) could not be rejected. Correlational Results The remaining hypotheses are four in number, but H(lO) consists of four sub-hypotheses, relating to the students' self-evaluations and those of their teachers. Table 23 presents two coefficients for some of the hypo theses, since the raw and adjusted performance scores are parallel dependent variables. Where the performance scores are not Involved, the resulting single coefficient is placed in the column headed "Raw." As inspection of this table will immediately reveal, not one of the coefficients was statistically greater than zero at the .05 level, so that none of them 13 indicative of any substantial trend whatever. I TABLE 23 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS RELATING TO HYPOTHESES NOS. NINE THROUGH THIRTEEN Variable 1 Variable 2 (Questionnaire Topics) Raw Adjusted Performance Educational Goal - . 0 1 1 .004 it Self-ratings Worry -.022 -.025 it i Teachers' ratings Anxiety -.088 .000 it Self-ratings Number of Friends -.051 -.065 it Teachers' ratings Rapport with Students .000 .000 it Self-ratings Getting Along .028 -.005 n Teachers' ratings Personality Adjustment .069 .052 Self-ratingB Teachers' ratings Worry/Anxiety .109 - n it Number of Friends/Rapport .009 - n ii Direction of Blame -.012 - n ti Getting Along/Adjustment .104 - vo 98 Additional Information The correlation between IQ and educational goal was positive; Its magnitude was 0.51. correlation be tween IQ and reading level was also positive, the coeffi cient being O.63. These correlations, unlike those In Table 23, reflect substantial relationships, A positive correlation between reading ability and Intelligence quo tients, especially those obtained from a paper-and-pencil test such as the California Test of Mental Maturity, is to r be expected; a high positive correlation between Intel ligence quotients and educational goal possibly reflects the fact that counselors take students1 IQ's Into account when advising them whether to consider going on to college or not. Essentially, then, whether the educational goal Is partly determined by multiple aptitude test results or by the more traditional type of intelligence test, reading comprehension is a major factor in all three of these cor relates. It would be of interest in this connection to use a strictly non-verbal performance type of measure of gener al ability. It should be noted that the above correlation be tween IQ and reading level, while relatively substantial, was probably reduced by the relatively coarse grouping and other factors, as noted In the discussion of Table 19. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter presents a brief summary of this re port and of the conclusions arising from a comparison of the present findings with the results of previous research on the subject. Summary The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of intensified playground noise on the test per formance of 11th grade high school subjects as related to personal, social, and intellectual factors. The 281 subjects of this study were selected from English III classes. These were combined to form five groups ranging in size from 46 to 73. These groups were the control group, the experimental group subjected to 75 db intermittent noise, the experimental group exposed to 85 db Intermittent noise, the experimental group subjected to 75 db steady noise, and the experimental group exposed to 85 db 3teady noise. The experimental design was Q-Q for the control group, Q-N and N-Q for the experimental groups; that is, the control group was tested under quiet conditions on both occasions, while the experimental groups were tested once under quiet and once under noise 99 100 conditions, half the subjects under quiet first, the others under noise first. The task was performance on Forms L and M of the DAT Verbal Reasoning Test. These two forms were alternated in order of presentation so a3 to offset serial effect. Hie time lapse between the two testing sessions was 48 hours, The dependent variable was a difference score. This was obtained by subtracting the 3core a subject at tained under noise conditions from his score achieved under quiet conditions. These raw differences were corrected for the non-equivalence of forms L and M, aB described in Chap ter XV. Only one of these research hypotheses tended to be supported by the data of this study, and then only in a limited sense, as discussed in the previous chapter. Conclusions Hypothesis 1 suggested that loud intermittent or steady noise (85 db) would produce a greater decrement in performance than noise at 75 db. The finding that inter mittent or steady noise (85 db) has no effect on intel lectual performance agrees with the report of Broadbent (1957)t but apparently challenges his contention that the more complex the task the greater will be the decrement in performance. Hie test used in the present study is con sidered to be a difficult, complex reasoning task. The 101 subject Is required to make higher-order mental decisions, for he is called upon to select one of five possible sets of words which complete a partially stated relationship. This intricate taBk was performed by the subjects of this experiment under noise with a mean level of 8 5 db, ranging in intensity from 8 0 to 9^ db, as effectively as under quiet conditions. Woodhead (l9 5 9h) found a decrement in performance when noise was produced at 9 5 and 1 1 5 db, but bursts at 8 5 db did not effect the performance of his sub jects on simple tasks, a finding which is supported by the present data. Hypothesis 2 postulated that intermittent noise would produce a greater deleterious effect on performance than steady noise at 8 5 db. Smith (1951) reported in creased number of responses with a decrease in accuracy when Intermittent noi3e with a quiet:noise ratio identical to this study, was presented at 102 db. Accuracy was the only comparable result. The present data did not reveal a decrease in accuracy of test performance even though the task in the present study was more difficult than the task of Smith's study. Hypothesis 3 was that no difference in performance would be observed when the sound level was maintained at the 7 5 db level as compared with quiet conditions. The data supported this prediction. This finding supports the choice by Broadbent (1957) of 75 db noise for his masking 102 or quiet level of noise. The findings of Sanders (1 9 6 1) at the close of the first half-hour of hi3 experiment are also supported by the data of the current study. Watkins (1 9 6 1) reported no effect of continuous or flutter noise on a less complicated task than the DAT Verbal Reasoning Test. How ever, Watkins (1964) did find a difference in performance when noise was presented simultaneously with the 3lgnal. Hypothesis 4 foresaw a difference between the per formance of high and low IQ subjects under noise conditions. The sample mean and standard deviation were used to classi fy the subjects into three subgroups: high, with IQ'3 above one standard deviation above the mean; low, with IQ's below one standard deviation below the mean; and average, com posed of the remaining subjects. The data 3howed that the two experimental groups exposed to steady noise at both levels of loudness showed no significant Interaction be tween IQ and noise. However, a moderately significant differential reaction was found in both of the groups ex posed to intermittent noise. Both attained the S per cent but fell short of the 1 per cent level of confidence, the difference being more marked in the case of Ob db noise than in that of noise at 7b db. This was the only hypo thesis of the thirteen tested that yielded any indication of a differential reaction to noise, and then the differ ence was found only in the case of intermittent noise. Tne conclusion here is that intermittent noise, at both the 75 103 and the 85 db levels, affects the average and low IQ student more adversely than It does the superior student.1 The veiy 3mall F-ratios found for the other groups suggest that, for subjects such as these, adaptation to steady noise presents no problem. The standard deviation of the IQ's in the present sample shows that there was some restriction of range. This was indeed to be expected in a sample of the present size, and also since all subjects were eleventh- grade students. In a large and unrestricted sample the differences among IQ levels, when exposed to various in tensities of Intermittent noise, might prove significant. Hypothesis 3 suggested that female subjects would perform more effectively than male subjects under noise conditions. The data failed to support thi3 prediction. The findings, however, did not present the opposite effect. The present data support the conclusion of no difference attributable to sex reported by Smith (ld^l). Hypothesis ' anticipated a better performance by subjects who reported that they tended to blame no one when angry. The data failed to support this prediction. No trend was apparent. It appears that the direction In which hostility is expressed has no relationship with performance under loud noise conditions. Tne teacher-Judges1 •^The low and average subgroup means tended to lie close together, with the mean for the hlgh-IQ subgroup relatively distant. The unadjusted scores alao showed this pattern. 104 evaluation regarding the direction in which the subject directs blame was not useful due to the fact that nearly 95 per cent of the teacher-Judges marked the Item "blames no one." Hypothesis 7 predicted that subjects Identified as superior readers would perform more effectively under noise conditions than those Identified as poor readers. Although a slight trend was noted supporting the prediction, it was so slight that it may be due to chance differences. Hypothesis 8 suggested that the subjective evalua tion of the effect of noise would be supported by the ob jective data. The data did not support the prediction, although there was a very slight trend noted supporting the prediction in the data of all experimental groups. This parallels the findings of Schllchter (1959)• The above hypotheses (numbers 1 through 8) were tested by analysis of variance. TTie remaining hypotheses concerned correlation coefficients. Hypothesis 9 foresaw a positive correlation between educational goals and performance under loud noi3e condi tions . The data did not support the prediction. Although the correlation was positive, it was too small even to suggest a trend in support of the prediction. Hypothesis 10 anticipated a positive correlation between the subject's opinion of the personality traits he possessed and the collective opinion of the teacher-Judges 105 regarding the personality traits the subject overtly dis played. It is composed of four sub-hypotheses, one for each item in the questionnaire. No significant correlation was found between the subjects1 self evaluations and the opinions of the teacher-Judges regarding the level of worry, the level of personality adjustment, rapport with students, or the direction in which blame was expressed. Hypothesis 11 predicted a positive correlation be tween the level of performance under noise and the degree of worry. The data revealed a correlation of approximately zero between subjects1 evaluation of their degree of worry and their test performance. The correlation between per formance and the teacher-Judges1 evaluation of the level of anxiety was also approximately zero. This finding does not confirm the finding of Auble and Britton (1958), where anxious individuals performed significantly better under 80 db noise conditions. Again, the question of the reliabili ty of teacher Judgments of personality traits must be con sidered. The lack of agreement between teacher-Judges may be a factor affecting the present findings. However, the difference in findings may be due to the use of different measures of anxiety. The Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, used by Auble and Britton, may measure some trait not identified by the high school teacher-Judges as anxiety. Although high school teachers are looked to for referrals for counseling, the only students referred are those who 106 become behavior problems In the classroom. It also may be worth noting that students may manifest different behavior In different environments, e.g., English, history, or physical education classes. Hypothesis 12 predicted a negative correlation be tween the performance of an Intellectual task under loud noise conditions and the degree of friendliness (extro version) . As Table 22 shows, a negative correlation was found between performance on the one hand and both self report of number of friends and the teacher-judges' evalua tion of their subjects* rapport with other students. In neither case, however, did r differ significantly from zerc* so that hypothesis 12 was not supported by the research findings. Hypothesis 13 anticipated a negative correlation between personality adjustment and performance under loud noise conditions, on the grounds that a withdrawn person would be less susceptible to environmental stimuli. This hypothesis was not supported by the findings; neither the self-report as to "ability to get along" nor the teacher- Judges* evaluation of their subjects' personality adjust ment yielded a correlation significantly greater than zero with performance. Summary of Research Findings This study failed to find any significant 107 differences among the five "treatments” (noise conditions) when the subjects were not subdivided according to any other trait. When the possible correlates, namely sex, IQ, read ing level, direction of blame, and subjective evaluation of the effects of noise, were used to subgroup the subjects within the treatments, only one yielded a differential re action: IQ. In this case a moderately significant inter action between noise and performance was found in the two treatments involving intermittent noise; the F-ratlos in the other treatments were trivial. A more detailed analy sis of this result showed that the differential responses to the intermittent noise levels were not in themselves significant, although they approached the 5 per cent level; there was an insignificant but non-zero interaction between IQ levels and intermittent noise levels which was not sepa rated from the main effect in the initial simple analysis. The remaining hypotheses related self- and teach ers* ratings to performance, and self-ratings with teach ers ' ratings. These were all tested by predicting and then calculating correlation coefficients. None of the latter differed significantly from zero, so none of the predic tions was confirmed. Recommendations for Further Study Remembering that all the subjects used in this 108 report were eleventh grade students In one school district In California, and that this effectively restricts the chronological and mental age ranges quite severely, and that the IQ distribution also showed restriction of range, investigators may find the following points worthy of con sideration in studying the effects of distraction: "White" or commonplace noise seemed to have little effect at 75 or 85 db, whether steady or intermittent, on subjects of this general type. When the same subjects were subgrouped on the basis of correlates initially thought likely to show a differen tial reaction to noi3e, none proved significant at the .05 level, except that a moderately significant interaction be tween noise and IQ levels was found in both groups exposed to Intermittent noise. Even when a more detailed analysis of thl3 was made, the differential responses of the IQ levels to the different Intensities of intermittent noise (Quiet, 75 db, and 85 db) still approached the .05 level of significance. This would seem a desirable area for further research. When the F-ratlos which failed to attain the ,05 level, yet were between the .25 and the .05 levels were Inspected, the following appeared to be potential areas of significance, given more detailed investigation and a less restricted range of ability: 109 (a) A greater range of noise levels, including noise beyond 85 db; (b) IQ and intermittent noise, perhaps with a more Irregular type of lntermittency; (c) Direction of blame and intermittent noise; (d) Reading ability (if more finely measured) and Intermittent noise. If this is to form part of a study, the test of IQ or general ability used should be more of the performance type. On the other hand, subgrouping on the basis of sex, and the measurement of performance of this type under stea dy nol3e, appear unpromising. B I B L I O G R A P H Y BIBLIOGRAPHY Anaatasi, Anne. Psychological testing. New York: Mac millan, 1957. ________ . Differential psychology. Third edition. New York: Macmillan, l$6o. Angelino, H., and Mech, E.V. Factors influencing routine performance under noise: II. An exploratory analysis of the influence of "adjustment." Journal of Psychology, 1955, 40, 397-401. Auble, D., and Britton, Nancy. Anxiety a3 a factor influ encing routine performance under auditory stimuli. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1958, 58, 111-4. Babcock, H. An experiment in the measurement of mental deterioration. Archives of Psychology, 1930, 117, 105. Baker, C. H. Towards a theory of vigilance. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1959, 13, 35-42. Barnnett, D. D., Ellis, M. R., and Pryer, M. W. Absence of noise effects on simple operant behavior of defectives. Perceptual and Motor Skills, i960, 10, 167-70. Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., and We3man, A. G. Third edition manual for the differential aptitude teBfcs. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1955. Berntson, R. K. A comparison of motor and thinking per formance in relation to stress and level of anxiety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1956. Berrien, F. K. Effects of noise. Psychological Bulletin, 1946, 43, 141. Bodemer, O. A, Two simultaneous measures of anxiety under different levels of task stress. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Indiana, 1957. Broadbent, D. E. Noise, paced performance and vigilance task. British Journal of Psychology, 1953, 44, 295- 303. Ill 112 Broadbent, D. E. Some effects of noise on visual perform ance . Pie Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, b> I-?* . Effects of noises of high and low frequency on behavior. Ergonomics, 1957, 1, 21-9. Broadbent, E. E. Effect of noise on an Intellectual "task." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1958, 30, 824-7. Buros, 0. K. (ed.) Pie fourth mental measurements year book. Highland Park, K. J.: Gryphon Press, 1953. Carterette, E. C. Perstimulatory auditory fatigue for con tinuous and interrupted noise. Journal of the Acousti- cal Society of America. 1955, 27,' IG'3-TT: Castaneda, A. Effects of stress on complex learning and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956. 52, 9-12. Child, I. L., and Waterhouse, I. K. Frustration and the quality of performance. Psychological Review, 1953, 60, 351-62. Conant, J. B. Slums and suburbs. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Cousins, N. Editorial. Saturday Review, 1962, 45, 20. Cronbach, L. J. Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper, 1966. Davis, R. C. Medical Report. Air Force School of Aviation, 1956, No. 55-127. Deese, J. Some problems in the theory of vigilance. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 359-68. Dewan, J. G. Intelligence and emotional Instability. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1948, 104, 548-55. Duwall, Mary I. Pie effect of manifest anxiety upon in cidental and new ta3k learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1957. Edwards, A. L. Statistical analysis. New York: Rinehart, 1959. 1X3 Fowler, C. Strange facts about sound. Science Digest, 1953, 34, 39-41. ----------- --- Freud, S. The problem of anxiety. New York: Norton, 1936. Garrett, H. E. Statistics In psychology and education. New York: Longmans, Qreen and Company, 195b. Griffiths, S. An examination of the causes of deteriora tion In academic performance among pupils In grammar school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1959, 29, ie>7-9. Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1954. _________. Fundamental statistics In psychology and educa- tlon. taew York: McGraw-Hill, l95o. Hardy, H. Loud noises not most harmful. Science Digest, 1952, 32, 24. Hill, W. F. Comments on Taylor*s drive theory and manifest anxiety. Psychological Bulletin, 1957, 54, 490-3. Hooper, S. L. Noise as a factor In business economics. Library Journal, 1951, 76, 746-7. . Noisy office costs money and efficiency. Ameri- can City, 1952, 67, 97. Hormann, H., and Todt, E. Larm und Lernen. Zeitschrlft fur Experlmentelle und Angewandte Psychologle, 19b0, 7, 422-6. Hull, C. L. Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1943. Jerger, J. F. Auditory adaptation. Journal of the Acous tical Society of America, 1957, 29, 35Y-t>3. Jerlson, H. J. Differential effects of noise and fatigue on a complex counting task. USAF WADC Tech. Rep. TR55-359 AD 110506, 1956. Combined effects of noise and fatigue on a com- plex counting task. USAF WADC Tech. Rep. TR55-360 AD 110506, 1956. .114 Jerison, H. J. Effect of noise on human performance. Jour nal of Applied Psychology. 1959/ 43, 96-101. • Effect of acoustic noise on time and Judgment. TJ53EF WADC Tech. Rep. TR57-206 AD 118171, 1957. _________, and Wallis, R. A. Experiments on Vigilance XI: one clock and three clock. USAF WADC Tech. Rep. TR57- 206 AD 118171. 1957. _________, and Wing, Shelley. Effects of noise on a complex vigilance task. USAF WADC Tech. Rep. TR57-14 AD 110700. 1957. Kanner, L. Emotional interference with Intellectual func tioning. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1951, 56, 701-7. Kirk, R. E., and Hecht, Elizabeth. Maintenance of vigi lance by programmed noise. Perceptual Motor Skills, 1963, 16, 553-60. Kryter, K. D. The effects of noise on man, I. Effects of noise on behavior. Journal of Speech Disorders (Monogr. suppl. l), 1950. Lawson, R., and Marx, M. H. Frustration: theory and ex periment. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1958, 57, 393-464. ------------------------ Lazarus, R. S., Deese, J., and Osier, Sonia F. The effects of psychological stress on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 1952, 49, 293-317* Leonard, J. A. Five choice serial reaction apparatus. Medical Research Council Applied Psychology Research Unit' T teporb, T359, ' 32b T 59. -------------------- --------------- Loring, J. C. G. Selected bibliography on the effects of high-intensity noise on man. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,Monograph, 19$4, 3, l-3tf. Lynn, R. Two personality characteristics related to aca demic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1959, 29, 21^-6. Mackworth, N, H. Researches on the measurement of human performance. (Medical Research Council Report Ho. 2bb.) London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1950. 115 McBain, W. N. Noise, the "arousal hypothesis," and monot onous work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 309-17. Mech, E. V. Factors influencing routine performance under noise: I. the Influence of set. Journal of Psychology, 1953, 35, 283t98. Miles, W. R. Immediate psychological effects. (In BENOX report, an exploratory study of the biological effects of noise.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1953. Park, J. C. The relationship between a measure of dis- tractibillty and an index of academic achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Flori da, June, 1950. Plutchik, R. The effects of high intensity intermittent sound on performance, feeling and physiology. Psy chological Bulletin. 1959, 5o, 133-51. Reiter, H. H. Effects of noise on discrimination reaction time. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963* 17, 4l8. Ruebush, B. K. Interfering and facilitating effects of test anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholo gy, i960, 60, 205-12’ : Russel, R. W. Behaviour under 3tress. International Jour nal of Psychoanalysis, 1953# 34, 1-12": Sanders, A. F. The influence of noise on two discrimina tion tasks. Ergonomics, 1961, 4, 253-8. Sarason, S. B., Davidson, K. S., Lighthall, F. K., Warte, R. R., and Ruebush, B. K. Anxiety in elementary school children. New York: John Wiley, i960. Schllchter, O. M. A study of the effects of auditory dis tractions upon learning. Unpublished doctoral disserta tion, University of Florida, 1959. Science News Letter. Fight machine noise by adding more noiseV“T955/ 67, 109. Science News Letter. Poorly adjusted less disturbed by noise. 1956, b9, 40. Senders, Virginia L. Measurement and statistics. New York: Oxford University tress, 1958. Shelly, M. Learning with reduced feedback information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961, 62, 209-22. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametrlc statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Smith, K. R. Intermittent loud noise and mental oerformance. Science, 1951, 114, 132-3. Stevens, S. S. Sound measurement: calculating the loudness of noise. Science, 1956, 123, 6 7 6. Sunset. Quiet is good for you, noise isn't. 1959, 122, 155-6. Taylor, Janet A. A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 265-90. Teichner, W, H., Aries, E., and Reilly, R. Noise and human ■performance, a psychophysiological aooroacr.. Ergonom ics, 1963, 6, 83-97. Thaler, Margaret. Effects of stressful situations or. learning. Psychiatric Research Report, 1956, 2, -6-9- Thorpe, J. G. The value of teachers' ratings of the adjust ment of their pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1959, 29, 267^126 Van Veen, F. T. Noise and it3 measurement. E1estronlc World, 1962, 6 7, 25-t. Wilkinson, R. T. Interaction of noise wic.n knowledge of results and 3leep deprivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1 9 6 3, to, 222-7. Wilson, R. A. Noise and it3 effect on r.umar. oelngs. Li brary Journal, 1951, 76, 7-2-t. Winer, B. J. Statistical principals in experimental de sign. New Vork: McGraw-Hill*, 1 962 . Woodbury, B. F. Noise can drive you crazy’ . Science Digest, 1959, 46, 1-4. Woodhead, Muriel M. Effect of brief loud r.oi3e on decision making. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1959, 31, 1329-31. 117 Woodworth, R. S., and Schlosberg, H. Experimental psychol ogy (Rev. ed.). New York: Henry Holt, 19^. Wundt, Wilhelm. Grundziige der physlologischen Psychologie. Vlerte umgearbelteteAuflage. Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Englemann, 1893, v2, 355-8. Zaldi, S. M. H. Cognitive behavior under stress: a survey of the literature. p3ychologia, 1959, 2, 57-84. APPEN DI XES A P P E N DI X A T E A C H E R Q U E S T I O N N A I R E Name of Student Date Clas s_________________________________ Teacher TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTION; Please place an X In the ( ) In front of the Item which you believe most clearly reflects your opinion of the student. 1. The level of the student1s anxiety, ( ) Very calm ( ) Average ( ) Very anxious 2. Peer Relationship ( ) Poor rapport with fellow students ( ) Average rapport with fellow students ( ) Superior rapport with fellow students 3. How does the student handle hostility? ( ) Blames self ( ) Blames no one ( ) Blames others 4. The personality adjustment ( ) Poor adjustment ( ) Average adjustment ( ) Superior adjustment 120 APPENDIX B STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE Name Date STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE DIRECTIONS: Place an X in the ( ) In front of the answer which most: clearly Indicates your feeling about yourself. Check only one answer for each question. 1. How much do you worry? ( ) I worry less than other students. ( ) I worry about as much as other students. ( ) I worry more than other students. 2. How many friends do you have? ( ) I have fewer friends than other students. ( ) I have about as many friends as other students. ( ) I have more friends than other students. 3. Generally speaking, who do you hold responsible when you get angry? ( ) I blame others. ( ) I blame no one. ( ) I blame myself. 4. Generally speaking, how do you get along at home and at school? ( ) I have more difficulty getting along with my family and individuals at school than other students have. ( ) I get along with my family and individuals at school Just about as well as other students. ( ) I get along with my family and individuals at school much better than other students. 5. !Hie noise had the following effect on me. ( ) It seemed to improve my work. 122 123 ( ) It had no effect. ( ) It interfered with my work. A P P E N D I X C A- LETT ER TO PARENTS Dear Parents: During the next few weeks the Eleventh Grade students of Nogales High School will have an opportunity to take part in a study conducted by the University of Southern Calif ornia. The purpose will be to determine the effect of noise on student performance and scholarship. In order to achieve valid results, some psychological testing will be necessary. TOie high school will not use the testing re sults for student evaluation or any other purpose. All information will remain confidential with the University of Southern California and used only to substantiate the study. We are certain the students will enjoy the experience and they will be assisting in a worthwhile project. I would be pleased to have all students participate in the 3tudy; however, should you prefer that your child not be included, please call the Principal's office. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, John E. Hoffman University of Southern California Approved: Glen A. Wilson, Superintendent La Puente Union High School District 125 APPENDIX D T E A C H E R - J U D G E S RAW DATA N_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 13 25 TABLE 24 GROUP I RAW DATA-TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Question 1 _________ Question 2 _________ Question 3 _________ Question 4 ______ Teacher-Judges Teacher-Judges Teacher-judges : Teacher-Judges 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 9 6 9 24 6 6 6 18 6 9 9 24 6 3 3 12 9 6 6 21 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 3 6 6 15 6 6 3 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 9 21 6 6 3 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 9 21 3 6 6 15 6 6 9 21 3 6 6 15 6 6 9 21 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 o 3 15 6 6 3 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 3 3 3 9 9 9 6 24 9 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 3 15 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 3 6 15 3 6 3 12 9 3 6 18 6 9 3 18 9 6 6 21 9 9 6 24 3 6 6 15 3 9 6 18 3 6 6 15 6 3 3 12 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 3 6 15 9 9 6 24 6 3 6 15 6 9 6 21 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 9 6 9 24 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 3 15 6 6 6 18 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 3 6 15 6 .6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 3 3 6 12 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 6 3 6 15 6 6 o 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 6 3 15 6 6 9 21 6 6 3 15 6 9 6 21 6 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 9 3 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 6 2 15 6 o 6 1§ 6 6 6 l§ 6 6 Q 21 6 6 5 18 6 0 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 Q 5 21 6 6 9 21 6 o 6 18 6 9 9 24 6 6 3 15 ro -3 N 2U 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 I 37 38 P 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 TABLE 24 (Continued) Question 1__________ Question 2__________ Question 3__________ Question 4 _______ Teacher-judges Teacher-Judges Teacher-J udges Teacher-Judges 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total V 5 9 23 3 5 3 12 5 9 9 23 5 5 3 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 9 21 6 3 6 15 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 3 6 15 6 9 6 21 6 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 o 18 6 o 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 3 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 3 15 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 9 9 24 6 6 9 21 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 6 6 3 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 b 9 24 3 6 3 12 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 3 S ' 0 15 6 9 6 21 6 6 18 6 s ' 0 6 18 9 6 21 6 3 S ' 0 15 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 S ' 0 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 18 6 'j 0 18 r O 3 15 6 S ' 0 6 18 6 3 15 6 9 6 21 6 9 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 21 6 S ' q 6 18 6 6 18 S ' 6 6 0 b 15 § b 0 18 6 6 18 6 6 s 0 16 6 6 15 • 3 S ’ 0 S ' 0 15 6 6 \ 15 12 5 3 6 S ' 0 6 6 IS 15 6 6 21 3 6 6 15 6 6 18 6 s ' 0 6 18 6 6 18 6 9 3 18 9 6 21 9 3 0 • 3 S O 6 6 15 15 0 6 0 6 6 6 18 b 6 15 6 6 S ’ 0 18 S’ 0 3 12 6 0 Q 21 9 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 1 3 0 b 15 6 b o 18 6 0 6 1 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 3 6 6 15 3 6 6 15 6 6 o 18 3 6 6 15 6 6 3 15 5 6 6 IS 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 3 6 3 12 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 3 18 3 6 9 18 6 6 3 15 6 9 6 21 9 3 9 18 6 9 6 21 9 6 b 21 6 3 6 15 0 o 0 lg 6 b 6 18 5 9 6 21 6 6 o 18 6 5 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 o 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 9 21 ! —J ro c o TABLE 25 GROUP II RAW DATA-TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Question 1 _________ Question 2 ______ Teacher-Judges Teacher-Judges N 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 1 9 6 Q y 24 0 6 0 18 2 9 6 n j 18 6 6 9 21 " V J ■ « . 6 3 12 6 6 9 21 4 6 3 O y 18 3 3 — 1 3 Q y 5 ■ 3 3 9 15 6 6 ’ j 18 6 A 5 15 6 0 •J 18 7 Q 6 6 21 6 J y 0 18 0 6 6 9 21 6 3 5 15 Q y 'j 6 18 6 3 0 IS 10 0 „/ 0 6 24 ' j 6 6 18 11 6 6 6 18 O 0 6 18 12 0 y 0 • j 21 6 Q S Q y 24 13 9 Q y Q y 27 A 3 3 9 14 6 -J r *D 15 S 0 O 3 15 15 6 9 6 21 6 6 0 18 16 0 9 9 24 6 6 6 18 17 6 Q 6 21 Q y s 0 y 0 21 18 6 y 0 0 18 6 6 6 18 19 6 6 •_ i 18 S 0 0 0 18 20 0 6 ■ _ ) 21 6 6 0 18 21 6 6 6 18 s 0 6 6 18 22 0 3 6 15 6 y 0 6 13 23 6 6 6 18 y O 5 6 18 24 9 6 y 0 21 —* 1 5 y O 15 25 s O a ■ j 21 Z " 0 " 3 9 18 2 6 6 0 6 18 0 y 6 21 Question 3 __________ Question 4 _______ Teacher-Judges Teacher-Judges 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 9 6 6 21 6 <5 6 18 y 0 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 y 0 6 18 6 6 9 21 6 y 0 y O 18 6 3 3 12 6 y O • 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 y 0 18 6 6 y O 18 6 6 0 18 6 6 6 18 6 y 0 y 0 18 6 6 6 18 6 y O 6 18 6 6 6 18 9 9 6 24 y O 6 6 18 y O 3 6 18 6 6 6 18 9 3 y 0 18 6 6 9 21 9 3 9 21 y O 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 y O 6 6 18 9 9 9 27 6 6 6 18 o 9 9 24 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 6 5 0 18 6 6 3 15 6 6 9 21 6 6 6 18 9 6 y O 21 6 6 6 18 6 y 0 6 18 6 y O 6 18 9 9 9 27 6 6 6 18 9 y 0 y O 21 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 3 6 6 15 y 0 3 9 18 6 3 Q 18 6 0 0 18 9 0 6 21 no vo N 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 U TABLE 25 (Continued) I ■ ! » ■ ■ ■ . — — — — ^ Question 1 __________ Question 2 ___________ Question 3 __________ Question 4 Teacher-Judges (Teacher-judges Teacher-J udges Teacher-Judges 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 T01 0 5 6 18 6 5 3 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 3 0 6 15 6 /- 0 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 3 r O 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 9 O _/ 6 24 3 3 6 12 6 9 6 21 3 3 6 12 6 6 0 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 3 0 15 6 0 y- O 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 3 3 6 12 6 9 6 21 6 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 0 18 6 6 6 18 3 6 6 15 6 ** 0 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 5 16 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 3 3 6 12 6 6 0 18 6 0 6 18 0 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 3 18 0 3 0 15 6 9 3 18 6 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 3 0 3 12 6 6 6 18 3 6 3 12 6 6 3 15 6 9 9 24 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 u 0 0 18 6 0 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 9 24 6 s~ 0 6 18 6 3 9 18 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 3 0 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 y- 0 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 0 0 21 6 s ' 0 6 18 6 0 6 21 6 6 3 15 0 6 9 21 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 3 6 6 15 6 3 6 15 3 6 0 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 3 6 6 15 3 6 3 12 9 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 0 18 9 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 0 18 6 6 0 18 6 6 0 18 0 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 0 6 6 18 0 0 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 9 6 21 130 TABLE 25 (Continued) Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Teacner-juages Teacner-juages Teacner-judges 'reacher-juages N 1 2 3 Total 1 2 i- 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 55 9 6 0 21 3 6 0 15 9 6 9 24 3 6 3 12 56 • 6 6 6 18 9 r * O 0 21 6 0 6 18 6 6 6 18 57 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 / - O 18 6 9 6 21 58 9 6 6 21 3 3 0 12 6 9 9 24 3 3 6 12 59 6 3 3 12 9 6 9 24 6 6 6 18 9 9 6 24 60 9 6 o 21 6 6 0 18 3 6 5 15 6 6 6 18 61 3 0 6 15 9 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 L0 N ~T 2 w 4 5 y o 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2d TABLE 26 GROUP III RAW DATA-TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Question 1_______ Teacher-judges 1 2 3 Total Question 2 Teacher-judges 1 2 3 Total Question 3 _______ Teacher-Judges 1 2 3 Total Question 4 Teacher-Judges Total y D 6 3 15 6 6 y D 18 6 6 o 18 6 6 6 18 y D 3 y o 15 6 6 y o 18 > • y O 6 y O 18 6 6 6 18 y O 6 6 18 y D y O 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 y O 3 0 12 6 6 6 18 6 6 9 21 6 6 6 18 9 3 6 18 Q y 9 9 27 y o 6 y o 18 9 ? 9 27 6 6 6 18 y o o 6 18 y D 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 9 6 9 24 9 y D o 21 Q 6 9 24 6 6 y O 18 6 y D y 0 18 6 6 y o 18 Q y y 0 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 r D 16 Q y y o 6 21 6 6 y o 18 6 6 6 18 6 y D 5 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 o y 21 6 6 y D 18 y o 9 9 24 6 6 6 18 3 y 0 y o 3 12 y o 0 O 18 y o 9 9 24 y o 3 3 12 6 9 21 6 o 6 18 9 6 ? 24 3 6 6 15 6 3 6 15 y D ■ 5 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 9 9 6 24 3 6 3 12 3 9 9 21 3 6 3 12 9 - J 6 18 3 y D 6 15 9 6 6 21 3 6 6 15 • 3 - > 3 y o 12 3 y O 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 ■ 3 y D 15 6 y o 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 ' J 6 18 6 y O 6 18 6- o y O 18 6 6 6 18 9 9 6 24 6 6 6 18 9 6 9 24 3 6 3 12 3 6 D 15 o 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 3 y o 6 15 9 9 9 27 3 6 6 15 6 6 9 21 6 y o 3 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 3 6 y D 15 3 6 6 15 3 6 6 15 q 9 6 24 6 3 6 15 6 6 21 o 6 y D 18 6 b 6 18 9 6 o 21 6 6 18 132 TABLE 26 (Continued) uestlon 1 _________ Question 2 __________ Question 3 Question 4 eacher-Judges Teacher-judges Teacher-judges Teacher-judges N 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 2? 0 o b 16 b b 9 2l 6 o o 18 6 6 9 si - 28 y o y O 9 21 6 6 6 18 9 6 ? 24 6 6 3 15 29 6 6 6 16 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 3 6 15 30 6 6 6 18 6 6 y O 18 6 9 6 21 6 3 6 15 31 y O 0 6 6 15 6 y o 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 32 9 6 21 3 6 6 15 9 6 y o 21 3 6 6 15 33 6 y O 6 18 3 6 o 15 9 6 6 21 6 6 y o 18 34 6 6 9 . 21 6 6 3 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 3 15 35 9 9 6 24 y O 3 6 15 9 6 6 21 6 3 6 15 36 6 3 6 15 6 3 6 15 6 9 6 21 6 3 6 15 37 6 3 6 15 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 y o 6 18 38 y O 3 y o 15 3 6 y o 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 39 6 o 6 18 6 6 y o 18 6 o 6 18 6 6 6 18 40 6 y o 6 18 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 41 3 y o 15 3 6 y o 15 6 6 y o 18 3 6 6 15 42 6 6 6 18 6 ■ o 6 18 6 y o 6 18 6 6 6 18 43 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 44 9 6 6 21 3 y o 6 15 6 6 6 18 3 6 6 15 45 6 6 6 18 6 6 / " o 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 46 6 5 6 18 9 6 6 21 6 6 y o 18 6 6 6 18 47 6 6 6 18 3 6 b 15 3 6 6 15 3 6 6 15 48 6 9 6 21 6 6 9 21 6 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 49 6 3 6 15 9 9 6 24 6 6 y o 18 9 9 6 24 50 3 3 6 12 9 9 6 24 6 o 6 18 9 9 6 24 51 3 6 6 15 3 6 3 12 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 52 3 6 3 12 9 6 9 24 3 6 6 15 6 6 9 21 53 6 y o 9 21 6 y o 3 15 6 9 9 24 6 6 3 15 54 6 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 y o 6 18 j _j uo u> 133 TABLE 26 (Continued) c o ■H P n 0) OOtnaO-5*- rHOOCX) irut i —irHoocOf—ir-ir-iaoi—100 T H r H H C M C M H H H C M C M C M r - l i H C M C M C M H C M r H at -p » o a> e* u T3 3 -»-3(nK0V0V0 ONVOVOVOVO ONONVOVOVOVOH) ONVOVO VO I (4 0 ) X CM § m c o tH p t o a) 3 1 1! a) p n p 0 ) eh U) 3 i u o X C V I o ( 0 a > CVJ c o -H P n a > 3 g at P a o a > E -t bO h t s 3 T-jOO I 0) X CM o < 0 C o I P C O 0) at p 3 £ bp ho L3 T-500 1 o 1x3 CM o at & E h <H V O m v o v o v o v o v o m v o v o vo VO VO O N O N V O VO VO VO vOVOVO O N ONVOVO V O O N VO ONVOVO VOVOVO VO O NVO 00oo00 ir\iH rHco mmmaoco irvooco moo cam pHrHpHrHCMCMrHrHrHrHiHrHpHrHr-CrHrHrHrH vo v o vo c o o n v o v o v o v o o n v o v o m v o ' o m v o v o . 0 0 O N V O vo V O vo O N V O O O V O vo V O oovo vo vo vo vo vo vo oovo vo vo vo vo vo vo O O V O V O O N V O vo vo vo vo vo vo 134 □0 00 H CO CO 00 rH^-CO H 00 0 0 0 0 1-t C O C O 00 G O iHONrHCMiHr-lrHCMCMrHCMrHr-lr-tCMr-I r l r l H CO mvo VO vo vo vo vo ovo vo vo vo vo vo vo vo vo vo vo m vo vo vo vo vo onvo vo vo vo vo V O O N V O V O V O V O vO OOVO ONVO vo vo vo ONVO ovo vovo vo vo vo vo vo co a o 00 m o o 0 0 goc o 0 0 a o c o goco t n i n 0 0 ao i n m H H r H H H H H H H H H r t H H H H H H r l V O V O V O V O <0 V O V O V O O O V O V O V O V O V O V O V O V O V O V O vo O O V O VOVOVOVOVOVOVOVOVOVO 00 O O V O vo vo vo vo o v o oovo V O vo vo O N V O v o v o v o v o v o v o v o o o o o invo t'-ao on o h cm 00^- m vo t'-ao on o rH cvj 00 m m m m m vo vo vovo vovo vovo vovo t— c — TABLE 27 GROUP IV RAW DATA-TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Question 1 _________ Question 2 __________ Question 3 _________ Question 4 Teacher-Judges Teacher-Judges Teacher-Judges Teacher-Judges N 1 2 Total 1 2 Total 1 2 Total 1 2 Total 1 2 3 6 6 6 6 15 18 9 6 9 6 6 s b 6 6 3 9 18 18 9 3 i 6 27 15 3 6 6 3 15 3 6 3 12 9 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 4 3 3 6 12 9 6 9 24 3 6 6 15 9 6 6 21 5 9 6 6 21 3 6 6 15 3 6 6 15 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 6 18 6 6 3 15 6 6 9 21 6 6 3 15 7 3 6 6 15 9 6 6 21 6 6 3 15 9 6 6 21 8 6 6 6 18 6 6 3 15 3 6 9 18 6 6 3 15 9 9 6 6 21 3 6 6 15 6 3 6 15 3 6 6 15 10 6 6 6 18 6 3 6 15 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 11 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 9 9 9 27 6 6 6 18 12 3 6 9 18 9 6 6 21 9 6 3 18 9 6 6 21 13 6 6 6 18 6 o 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 14 9 6 6 21 3 6 6 15 3 6 6 15 3 6 6 15 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 16 9 6 3 18 3 6 0 15 9 6 o 21 3 6 0 15 17 6 6 0 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 / - o 18 18 9 6 6 21 6 o o 18 9 6 6 21 3 6 b 15 19 6 6 6 18 6 6 0 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 20 6 3 6 15 6 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 22 3 3 6 12 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 23 9 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 3 6 6 15 24 9 6 3 18 3 6 3 12 6 6 6 18 3 6 3 12 25 6 6 6 18 6 3 6 15 6 9 9 24 6 3 6 15 26 9 6 6 21 3 6 6 15 9 6 6 21 3 3 6 12 135 N_ 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 31 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 TABLE 27 (Continued) Teacher-Judges Teacher-Judges Teacher-Judges 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 Total 9 6 6 21 6 0 6 18 9 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 9 6 9 24 3 6 6 15 6 6 o 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 o 6 18 3 6 3 12 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 3 6 6 15 9 3 9 21 3 6 3 12 9 6 6 21 3 9 3 15 9 6 6 21 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 3 6 6 15 3 6 6 15 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 9 3 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 6 9 21 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 o 6 18 9 6 9 24 6 6 6 18 6 6 9 21 6 6 3 15 9 6 6 21 0 6 6 18 9 3 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 o 0 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 6 6 9 21 3 6 6 15 6 o 9 21 6 6 6 18 6 3 6 15 6 6 o 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 s~ o 18 9 6 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 3 6 15 9 3 6 18 6 6 6 18 9 3 6 18 6 6 9 21 6 o 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 o 3 15 6 9 6 21 9 6 6 21 6 9 6 21 S ’ o 3 6 15 6 6 0 18 6 6 S " o 18 6 6 6 18 Question 1 Teacher-Judges Total uJ o^ TABLE 28 GROUP V RAV DATA-TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE N T 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 T 6 6 6 3 6 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 eacher-Judges 3 Total 5 Que3'bloi^r Teacher- 2 T l T 6 6 6 3 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 6 3 6 2 T 3 6 9 6 9 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 3 3 3 6 6 6 9 6 6 6 6 6 judges 3 Total 15— Question? Teacher‘ -judges 1 2 3 Total F F 9 r* 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 6 6 6 6 o 6 6 I F 24 18 18 21 18 21 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 21 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 15 1 T 6 6 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 T 3 6 9 6 6 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Total 15--- 12 18 21 18 18 15 18 18 15 18 18 21 18 18 15 18 18 15 18 21 18 18 18 18 24 18 9 3 3 6 6 6 3 6 3 9 6 6 6 6 3 3 6 I 6 6 3 6 6 6 6 T 9 3 3 6 6 6 6 3 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 24 12 12 15 18 21 15 15 15 18 18 18 18 18 15 15 21 21 18 15 18 15 18 18 18 18 6 6 6 6 6 o 6 6 6 6 6 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 18 21 15 21 15 18 18 15 18 18 21 15 15 15 18 18 15 18 18 24 18 15 18 24 18 6 6 6 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 6 6 o 6 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 / « * o 6 6 6 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 6 6 6 6 137 TftBTiE 28 (Continued) question 1 question 2 question 3 Question 4 Teacher-Judges Teacher-Judges Teacher-Judges Teacher-Judges N 1 2 3 Total 1 2 Total 1 2 Total 1 2 Total 20 29 0 6 3 6 b 6 15 18 9 6 i 6 64 18 6 6 b 6 9 ’ 18 21 b 9 b 6 6 IB" " 21 30 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 31 6 6 3 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 32 3 3 3 9 9 6 6 21 J 6 6 6 18 9 9 9 27 33 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 34 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 9 21 6 6 6 18 35 9 9 6 24 3 6 3 12 9 9 9 27 3 6 6 15 36 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 9 6 6 21 3 6 6 15 37 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 38 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 39 6 6 9 21 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 40 6 6 6 18 6 o 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 41 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 6 6 6 18 42 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 43 6 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 3 6 15 6 6 6 18 44 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 9 21 6 6 6 18 45 9 3 6 18 6 '6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 46 3 9 6 18 9 6 6 21 6 6 9 21 9 6 6 21 47 3 6 3 12 3 6 6 15 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 48 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 6 6 18 6 9 6 21 A P P E N D I X E R A W DATA TABLE 29 GROUP I (CONTROL) RAW BATA Reading Course Test Experl. +5C N Sex Level Track IQ Score Score DlfJ 1 M 4 A 94 16 12 54 2 M 4 C 84 16 15 51 3 M 4 A 86 16 20 46 4 M 4 C 97 22 24 48 5 M 4 A 96 15 18 47 6 M 4 A 89 16 14 52 7 M 4 C 95 10 21 39 8 M 4 C 83 17 25 42 9 N 4 C 97 19 20 49 10 M 4 A 94 30 28 52 11 M 4 A 88 14 12 52 12 M 4 C 103 17 17 50 13 M 4 A 100 22 15 57 14 M 4 A 84 11 10 51 15 M 4 A 97 16 20 46 16 M 4 A 98 13 16 47 17 M 4 A 95 17 15 52 18 F 4 A 109 26 36 40 19 F 4 A 91 16 19 47 20 F 4 A 87 18 18 50 21 M 6 C 92 22 17 55 22 M 6 C 104 17 18 49 23 M 6 C 104 32 40 42 24 M 6 C 114 40 35 55 25 M 6 c 95 30 28 52 T3justed StuT"Que£^1 !!eac]ier^u3ge3 Totals Difference 1 2 3 ^ 5 1 2 3 4 57.3962 1 2 2 2 24 18 24 12 54.3962 2 2 3 2 21 15 18 15 4 2 .6038 2 2 2 2 15 18 21 15 44.6038 1 2 2 2 18 18 18 18 43.6038 2 2 3 2 21 15 21 15 55.3962 2 2 1 2 21 21 21 21 42.3962 2 2 3 2 15 15 18 18 45.3962 2 2 1 2 9 24 21 15 4 5 .6038 2 2 2 2 15 18 21 15 4 8 .6038 2 2 3 1 12 18 18 21 4 8 .6038 3 1 3 1 24 15 18 15 53.3962 2 3 1 3 12 21 18 21 53.6038 2 2 3 3 15 24 15 21 54.3962 1 2 2 2 15 18 24 18 4 2 .6038 3 2 2 1 18 18 21 18 50.3962 1 2 2 2 15 18 15 18 4 8 .6038 2 2 1 2 15 18 18 18 43.3962 3 1 2 1 12 18 18 21 50.3962 2 2 2 2 15 18 18 18 4 6 .6 0 3 8 3 2 3 2 21 15 21 15 51.6038 2 3 2 2 21 15 18 18 52.3962 3 2 1 3 21 18 18 21 45.3962 3 2 2 2 15 18 18 21 58.3962 2 3 3 2 18 18 18 21 55.3962 3 2 1 2 21 18 24 15 o TABLE 29 (Continued) Course Test N Sex Level Track IQ Score cperJ Score 15n r r +50 Adjusted Difference Stu.Quest, 12 3 4 5 ^KacKe? 1 2 26 M 6 — B' .183” 36 30 56 52.0038 - y T 1 1 24 12 24 15 2I M 6 c 102 36 38 48 51.3962 2 2 1 2 18 18 18 21 28 M 6 c 96 29 36 43 46.3962 2 3 3 2 15 21 18 21 29 H 6 c 105 38 41 47 50.3962 3 2 1 2 . 18 18 18 18 30 M 6 A 91 24 23 51 47.6038 2 2 2 2 21 15 21 15 31 M 6 c 107 34 21 63 59.6038 2 2 1 2 18 18 18 18 32 M 6 c 101 32 20 62 58.6038 2 3 1 2 15 18 18 21 33 P 6 c . 109 14 36 28 31.3962 3 1 1 2 18 18 18 18 34 P 6 A 109 43 35 58 54.6038 2 2 3 2 18 18 18 18 35 F 6 c 110 22 30 42 45.3962 2 3 3 2 15 18 18 18 36 F 6 c 109 38 35 53 56.3962 2 2 2 2 15 21 18 24 37 F 6 A 91 12 11 51 54.3962 2 3 3 2 21 18 21 15 38 F 6 A 96 14 14 50 46.6038 3 2 1 3 18 18 18 18 39 F 6 A 85 35 24 61 57.6038 2 2 2 1 21 18 18 18 40 M 8+ C 107 37 39 48 44.6038 2 2 2 2 18 18 18 18 41 M 8+ C 116 25 29 46 49.3962 1 2 2 2 15 18 18 18 42 M 8+ c 100 17 20 47 50.3962 2 2 2 2 18 18 18 18 43 M 8f c 115 40 31 59 55.6038 1 1 2 1 15 15 18 15 44 M 8+ c 113 38 43 45 48.3962 2 2 2 2 15 18 18 18 45 M 8* c 105 25 19 56 59.3962 1 1 2 2 12 15 18 18 46 M 8+ c 107 44 37 57 53.6038 3 2 2 1 21 15 18 15 47 F 8+ c 112 34 31 53 49.6038 2 2 2 2 18 18 18 21 48 F 8+ c 119 34 45 39 42.3962 2 2 2 2 18 18 18 15 49 F 8+ c 113 44 40 54 50.6038 2 3 2 3 21 18 21 21 50 F 8+ c 104 27 33 44 47.3962 2 2 2 2 15 18 18 21 51 F 8+ c 99 33 33 50 53.3962 1 2 2 2 15 18 18 18 52 F §+ c 106 39 30 59 55.6038 2 2 2 2 15 18 1 8 18 53 F 8+ c 100 20 .,sa,T 45 48.3982 1 2 2 2 12 21 18 21 TABLE 30 GROUP II (75 db INTERMITTENT NOISE) RAW DATA ^?ea3ffn^5ou^a^l , " " B Te3^^3cpe^!^7B^?^^3^3us^ec^^^^^53e3^^eacI^e^^3u3geT^otaK, N Sex Level Track *9 Score Score +50 Difference 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 M 4 A 165 27 21 56 52.6638 2 2 1 3 2 54 18 21 IB 2 : m 4 A 106 24 36 38 41.3962 1 2 1 2 3 18 21 18 18 3 M 4 A 103 25 20 55 58.3962 2 2 3 3 3 12 21 18 21 4 M 4 A 73 12 7 55 58.3962 3 2 3 1 2 18 9 18 12 5 M 4 A 91 26 24 52 55.3962 2 2 l 2 3 15 18 18 18 6 M 4 C 84 16 11 55 51.6038 2 3 1 3 2 15 18 18 18 7 M 4 A 94 16 14 52 48.6038 2 2 3 2 3 21 18 18 18 8 M 4 A 76 10 7 53 56.3962 1 2 3 2 2 21 15 18 18 9 M 4 C 96 37 22 65 61.6038 3 2 1 2 3 18 18 18 18 10 M 4 C 112 27 28 49 45.6038 2 2 2 1 2 24 18 24 18 11 M 4 A 81 14 13 51 54.3962 2 2 2 2 2 18 18 18 18 12 M 4 A 100 24 29 45 48,3962 2 2 2 1 3 21 24 18 21 13 M 4 C 99 10 13 47 43,6038 r 3 3 1 2 27 9 21 15 14 F 4 A 76 19 17 52 55.3962 2 2 3 2 3 15 15 18 18 15 F 4 A 94 8 11 47 43.6038 3 2 3 2 3 21 18 27 18 16 F 4 A 94 9 6 53 56.39b2 3 2 2 2 1 24 18 24 18 17 F 4 A 86 25 22 53 49.6038 3 3 1 2 3 21 21 18 21 18 F 4 A 80 8 6 52 55.3962 2 2 2 2 2 18 18 18 15 19 F 4 A 97 15 13 52 48.6038 2 1 2 2 2 18 18 21 18 20 F 4 A 79 13 12 51 54.3962 2 2 2 2 2 21 18 21 18 21 F 4 A 86 26 19 57 60.3962 3 2 3 1 1 18 18 18 18 22 F 4 A 102 17 21 46 42.6038 1 2 3 2 3 15 18 27 18 23 M 6 C 107 34 30 54 50.6038 1 2 1 3 3 18 18 21 18 24 M 6 A 97 25 12 63 59.6038 1 2 1 2 2 21 15 21 15 ro TABLE Experl. N Sex Level Track IQ Score Score 65 M" ' A 96 25 23 26 H 6 c 112 19 12 2I M 6 A 84 9 16 28 M 6 C 102 40 31 29 M 6 c 93 21 16 30 M 6 c 104 26 25 31 M 6 c 107 22 20 32 M 6 C 122 33 33 33 M 6 c 94 29 38 34 M 6 c 97 20 19 35 M 6 c 105 30 26 36 M 6 c 112 44 42 37 M 6 c 105 34 37 38 M 6 A 96 22 35 39 P 6 A 96 24 25 40 F 6 A 110 14 19 41 F 6 C 83 5 8 42 F 6 C 109 37 24 43 F 6 A 91 23 20 44 F 6 C 116 35 41 45 F 6 c 104 26 29 46 F 6 c 99 30 23 47 F 6 A 103 15 22 48 F 6 A 92 15 17 30 (Continued) m 7 . Adjusted Stu.Quest. Teacher-Judgea Totals +50 Difference 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 “52— 4B'.£618----£ 1” S " 1 £ SI— IB— IB— IB 57 60.3962 3 2 3 43 46.3962 3 2 3 59 62.3962 3 2 1 55 58.3962 3 2 3 51 47.6038 2 2 1 52 48.6038 3 2 1 50 53.3962 2 11 41 44.3962 3 2 3 51 47.6038 2 2 3 54 50.6038 2 2 3 52 48.6038 3 11 47 50.3962 2 2 2 37 40.3962 2 2 3 49 52.3962 2 2,3 45 41.6038 2 2 3 47 50.3962 2 2 1 63 59.6038 2 3 3 53 56.3962 12 1 44 47.3962 2 3 2 47 43.6038 3 2 3 57 53.6038 3 12 43 46.3962 3 2 2 48 44.6038 3 2 3 3 2 18 21 18 21 3 2 18 15 18 18 1 3 15 18 18 18 2 3 15 18 18 18 2 3 24 12 21 12 1 3 18 18 18 18 2 2 15 18 18 18 2 2 21 12 21 15 2 2 18 18 18 18 2 2 15 18 18 18 1 2 18 15 18 12 2 1 18 18 18 18 2 2 18 15 18 15 3 3 18 12 18 12 2 3 15 24 18 21 2 3 18 18 18 18 2 3 24 18 18 18 3 2 21 15 18 18 1 2 18 18 18 18 2 3 21 18 21 15 1 3 21 15 18 15 2 3 15 15 18 18 2 2 18 18 21 18 La) TABLE 30 (Continued) Reading N Sex Level fexperi. I)lf/!" Adjusted Score Difference eacner uages 4$ M "B+ " "<T' 90 1? “ '18 " 49 45.6038 1 3 T 1 2 2l 18 21 15 50 M 8+ C 126 40 35 55 51.6038 2 3 3 3 2 12 21 18 18 51 M 8+ C 109 32 38 44 47.3962 3 2 1 1 2 18 21 18 21 52 M 8+ A 100 32 27 55 58.3962 3 1 1 2 2 18 18 18 18 53 M 8+ C 117 39 40 49 45.6038 1 2 3 2 3 21 18 18 18 54 M 8+ c 117 43 44 49 45.6038 3 2 2 2 3 18 18 21 21 55 M 8+ c 128 25 41 34 37.3962 1 2 3 2 2 21 15 24 12 56 M 8+ c 115 39 32 57 53.6038 1 2 1 2 2 18 21 18 18 57 M 8+ c 123 35 41 44 47.3962 2 2 1 1 3 18 18 18 21 58 M 8+ c 123 36 43 43 46.3962 3 2 1 3 3 21 12 24 12 59 F 8+ c 121 39 47 42 45.3962 2 1 3 2 2 12 24 18 24 60 F 8+ c 108 37 37 50 46.6038 1 2 2 3 2 21 18 15 18 61 F 8+ c 113 45 40 55 51.6038 2 2 1 2 2 15 21 18 21 H - f = - - P T I TABLE 31 GROUP III (85 db INTERMITTENT NOISE) RAW DATA Reading Course Track N Sex 14 15 16 IT 18 19 20 21 22 TT M M M M M M 8 M 9 M 10 M 11 M 12 M 13 M F F F F F F F F F TT 4 4 4 4 4 I 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 TT A C A C C A C A C A A A A A A A A A A A A 87 97 91 87 102 88 97 104 98 79 110 101 81 73 85 74 87 104 88 85 91 5 21 16 12 12 11 10 21 22 11 40 20 13 5 8 11 17 10 10 18 16 6 17 14 13 14 11 13 19 27 9 24 20 11 7 9 11 23 21 4 9 11 49 54 52 49 48 50 47 32 45 52 66 50 52 48 49 50 44 39 56 59 55 JIJustecF Difference 53.356S 45.6038 50.6038 55.3962 52.3962 51.3962 46 .6038 50.3962 55.3962 48.3962 48.6033 62.6038 53.3962 48.6038 51.3962 45.6038 53.3962 47.3962 42.3962 52.6038 55.6038 51.6038 TSlSu!5ue3F 1 2 3 4 5 T Tjea^ner^JuSges 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 T 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 T 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 T T 15 18 12 18 18 24 18 18 18 21 12 21 15 24 18 12 15 18 24 15 21 2 “ 15" 18 18 18 21 18 21 18 18 18 18 18 12 15 15 18 18 18 18 15 5" 18 18 21 18 21 24 21 18 18 24 24 24 18 21 21 18 18 18 24 18 27 Totals 4 T8" 18 18 18 27 18 18 18 18 18 18 12 15 18 12 15 18 18 18 12 18 15 » - > V J l TABLE 3L (Continued) Heading Course ' test Experl. bil'r. Adjusted _!>Fu .Quest. Teacher-Judges totals N Sex Level Track Score Score +50 Difference 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 23 M 6 , ■ — 104 20 19 $1 54.3^62 2 2 I £ 3 £1 15 18 18 24 M 6 A 88 20 14 56 59.3962 2 3 2 2 3 15 18 15 15 25 M 6 C 92 21 20 51 47.6038 2 2 3 3 2 15 24 15 21 26 M 6 C 94 38 31 57 53.6038 3 2 3 2 3 18 18 21 18 27 M 6 c 120 35 38 47 43.6038 2 3 3 2 2 18 21 £8 21 28 M 6 c 109 19 26 43 46.3962 2 3 3 2 3 21 18 24 15 29 M 6 c 129 25 25 50 46.6038 1 2 1 3 3 18 21 18 18 30 M 6 c 87 28 28 50 46.6038 1 3 3 2 1 18 18 21 15 31 M 6 A 113 17 21 46 49.3962 3 3 3 3 3 15 18 18 18 32 M 6 C 103 24 35 39 35.6038 1 2 2 2 3 21 15 21 15 33 M 6 C 105 26 27 49 52.3962 2 2 1 1 3 18 15 21 18 34 M 6 C 115 26 30 46 49.3962 2 2 1 2 2 21 15 18 15 35 M 6 A 97 30 27 53 49.6038 2 2 1 1 3 24 15 21 15 36 M 6 c 107 31 18 63 59.6038 1 2 3 2 3 15 15 21 15 37 M 6 c 87 11 11 50 53.3962 2 2 3 2 3 15 15 18 18 38 M 6 c 90 22 19 53 49.6038 2 2 2 2 2 15 15 18 18 39 P 6 c 100 22 16 56 52.6038 3 2 3 2 3 18 18 18 18 40 P 6 A 100 21 . 20 51 47.6038 2 1 3 2 3 18 15 18 18 41 F 6 A 108 29 39 40 43.3962 2 2 1 2 2 15 15 18 15 42 F 6 A 102 22 26 46 49.3962 3 2 2 2 3 18 18 18 18 43 P 6 A 100 18 14 54 57.3962 3 2 1 3 3 18 18 18 18 44 F 6 A 88 19 13 56 52.6038 1 2 1 2 3 21 15 18 15 45 P 6 C 90 34 21 63 59.6038 2 2 3 2 2 18 18 18 18 46 F 6 A 85 19 8 61 64.3962 3 2 3 2 2 18 21 18 18 47 P 6 C 87 28 32 46 49.3962 3 3 1 2 2 18 15 15 15 M - P " C\ TABLE 31 (Continued) e **^™^eacffng"^o^s^*aK==^reste ^Exper^^5S?^^5jusTeT^^tu!Q!ue^r^e8to!iei^fu3gesTotals N Sex Level Track IQ Score Score +50 Difference 1234-51 2 3 4_____ 48 M 8+ c 126 ^3 37 56 52.6038 3 2 3 1 3 21 21 15 18 49 M 8+ c 125 35 42 43 46.3962 2 3 1 2 3 15 24 18 24 50 M 8+ c 122 37 44 43 46.3962 1 l 1 3 2 12 24 18 24 51 M 8+ c , 125 48 46 52 4 8 .6 0 3 8 3 l 1 2 3 15 12 18 21 52 M 8+ c 109 40 38 52 48.6038 2 1 1 2 3 12 24 15 21 53 M 8+ c 114 37 38 49 52.3962 2 3 1 3 3 21 15 24 15 54 M 8+ c 106 34 40 44 47.3962 3 2 1 2 3 15 18 18 18 55 F 8+ c 118 30 42 38 41.3962 3 2 1 3 3 18 18 18 18 56 F 8 f c 113 38 39 49 52.3962 2 1 2 3 3 18 9 18 15 57 F 8+ c 120 34 42 42 45.3962 1 3 2 3 2 18 18 18 21 58 F 8+ c 118 38 37 51 4 7 .6 0 3 8 2 2 1 2 3 15 21 15 24 59 F 8+ c 116 36 40 46 49.3962 3 2 3 2 3 18 18 21 21 60 F 8+ c 111 4o 31 59 55.6038 2 2 2 2 3 18 18 21 18 61 F 8+ c 126 34 44 40 4 3 .3 9 6 2 3 2 1 3 3 18 18 18 18 62 F 8+ c 117 41 40 51 47.6038 1 2 3 2 2 18 21 15 15 63 F 8+ c 128 46 40 56 52.6038 2 3 3 3 2 18 24 15 24 64 F 8+ c 114 32 44 38 41.3962 3 1 3 2 2 18 18 15 21 65 F 8+ c 108 22 14 58 54.6038 2 2 3 2 3 18 21 18 21 66 F 8+ c 108 26 24 52 55.3962 2 3 3 2 3 18 18 18 18 67 F 8+ c 101 29 28 51 54.3962 2 2 2 2 2 18 18 15 18 68 F 8+ c 106 37 42 45 48.3962 3 2 1 2 3 15 18 18 21 69 F 8+ c 110 32 40 42 45.3962 2 2 3 2 3 15 21 18 21 70 F 8+ c 109 45 26 69 6 5 .6 0 3 8 3 2 2 2 2 18 18 15 21 71 F 8+ c 115 44 36 58 54.6038 3 2 3 2 3 18 18 18 18 72 F 8+ c 110 37 39 48 51.3962 2 2 2 2 2 15 18 18 21 73 F 8* c 93 32 24 58 54.6038 3 1 3 3 3 15 18 15 18 TABLE 32 GROUP IV (75 db STEADY NOISE) RAW DATA T?ea3^^Tourse fes^^xper5m^^T3jus^e^™^?tinQues^TeacIier^Ju3ge^Tota]^ N Sex Level Track IQ Score Score +50 Difference 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 M 4 A 90 “ 16™ lb 50 53". 3962 2 2 3 2 3 15 27 ±8 27 2 M 4 A 89 12 15 47 43.6038 3 2 3 3 2 18 18 18 15 3 M 4 A 90 27 16 61 57.6038 2 2 2 2 2 15 12 21 18 4 M 4 C 107 29 27 52 48.6038 2 2 3 2 3 21 15 15 15 5 M 4 A 85 24 19 55 58.3962 2 2 2 2 2 12 24 18 21 6 M 4 A 101 24 23 51 54.3962 2 2 3 2 3 18 15 21 15 7 M 4 C 85 18 21 47 43.6038 3 3 3 2 1 15 21 15 21 8 F 4 A 90 8 3 55 58.3962 2 2 2 2 2 18 15 18 15 9 F 4 A 84 17 13 54 50.6038 2 2 3 2 2 21 15 15 15 10 F 4 A 84 31 34 47 50.3962 2 3 3 3 2 18 15 15 18 ll F 4 A 86 29 20 59 55.6038 3 3 3 3 2 18 21 27 18 12 F 4 A 94 20 26 42 45.3962 3 2 2 1 3 18 21 18 21 13 F 4 A 93 17 7 60 63.3902 3 2 3 2 2 18 18 18 18 14 F 4 A 100 27 21 56 52.6038 2 2 l 2 2 21 15 15 15 148 TABLE 32 (Continued) N Sex Reading Course Level Track 53 Test Score Experi. Score DifJ +5< 15 M 6 C 9b 8 13 45 16 M 6 C 103 21 22 49 17 M 6 A 114 17 20 47 18 M 6 C 104 21 22 49 19 K 6 A 88 14 13 51 20 M 6 C 119 39 34 55 21 M 6 c 91 23 14 59 22 M 6 c 90 19 15 54 23 M 6 c 91 24 26 48 24 M 6 A 96 17 10 57 25 F 6 A 84 20 21 49 26 F 6 A 94 21 25 46 27 F 6 A 84 12 10 52 28 F 6 C 103 30 34 46 29 F 6 A 103 24 20 54 30 F 6 A 97 15 8 57 31 F 6 A 93 28 27 51 32 F 6 A 93 27 1 12 65 33 F 6 A 90 28 21 57 34 M &+ C 111 23 16 57 35 M 8+ C 100 27 20 57 36 M 6+ C 122 40 11 79 37 M 8+ C 117 20 20 50 38 M 8+ c 112 45 33 62 39 M 8+ c 99 24 16 58 Adjusted Stu.Quest. Teacher-Judges Totals Difference 1 2 3 4 5 1 .2 3.. 4 4b.39t>2 2 2 2 £ i 18 18 IS 18 45.6038 1 2 1 2 2 18 15 21 15 43.6038 1 3 1 2 2 18 18 18 18 52.3962 3 2 3 2 1 21 18 21 15 47.6038 2 2 2 3 2 18 18 18 18 51.6038 2 2 1 2 3 15 15 18 18 62.3962 2 2 3 2 3 18 18 18 18 50.6038 2 2 1 2 3 12 18 18 18 51.3962 2 2 3 2 3 21 18 18 15 60.3962 2 2 1 2 1 18 12 18 12 52.3962 3 3 3 3 2 18 15 24 15 42.6038 3 2 1 1 2 21 15 21 12 48.6038 2 2 2 2 2 21 18 21 18 49.3962 3 3 3 2 3 21 18 24 15 50.6038 2 2 2 2 3 18 18 18 18 60.3962 2 1 2 2 2 12 15 18 15 54.3962 1 3 2 2 3 21 12 21 15 61.6038 3 3 3 3 3 21 15 18 15 53.6038 2 2 1 2 3 15 15 18 18 53.6038 3 2 2 1 3 18 21 21 21 53.6038 3 2 3 2 3 18 18 18 18 82.3962 1 3 1 3 1 24 18 21 15 53.3962 3 3 3 3 1 21 18 18 18 58.6038 1 3 1 2 3 18 18 18 18 54.6038 3 3 3 2 3 21 21 15 21 TABLE 32 (Continued) Reading Course Test Experi. Diff. Adjusted Stu.Quest. Teacher-Judges Total3 n Sex Level Track Score Score +50 Difference 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 4 46 F "8+ A 51 28 35 43 4b. 39t>2 2 2 2 2 2 18 15 18 18 41 F 8+ C 105 33 30 53 49.6038 2 2 2 2 3 18 18 21 18 42 F 8+ C 109 37 28 59 55.6038 2 2 3 2 3 15 18 18 18 43 F 8+ c 114 35 37 48 51.3962 3 2 3 3 3 21 18 18 18 44 F 8+ c 129 43 45 48 51.3962 2 2 3 3 2 18 18 18 18 45 F 8+ c 115 48 36 62 5 8 .6 0 3 8 2 2 1 2 3 15 21 21 21 46 F 8+ c 118 20 26 44 47.3962 2 2 3 2 2 15 15 18 18 150 TABLE 33 GROUP V (85 db STEADY NOISE) RAW DATA Reading Course Test Experi. Diff N Sex Level Track IQ Score Score +50 1 M 4 A 80 ? 8 51 2 M 4 A 99 24 28 46 3 M 4 A 92 28 30 48 4 M 4 A 99 19 31 38 5 F 4 C 84 23 25 48 6 F 4 A 73 12 12 50 7 F 4 C 93 36 24 62 8 F 4 A 15 19 46 9 F 4 A 86 14 11 53 10 F 4 A 90 16 21 45 11 F 4 A 97 14 15 49 Adjusted Stu.Quest. Teacher-Judges To1 Difference 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 54.3962 2 2 2 2 3 9 15 18 18 49.3962 3 2 3 1 3 24 15 24 12 44.6038 2 2 2 2 3 12 18 18 18 41.3962 2 2 1 2 3 12 21 18 21 51.3962 2 2 1 2 2 15 15 21 18 46.6038 3 2 3 2 3 18 21 18 18 58.6038 3 2 3 1 3 21 15 21 15 49.3962 3 2 2 2 3 15 18 18 18 56.3962 3 2 2 2 3 15 18 18 18 48.3962 3 3 2 2 1 15 15 18 15 45.6038 3 2 2 2 3 18 18 18 18 TABLE 33 (Continued) eading Course ¥est ExperlT’ T n ^ Adjusted StuT5ue3^TeacKer-Judge3 Totals N Sex Level Track Score Score +50 Difference 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 12 M 6 C 98 31 23 58 54.6038 2 2 3 2 3 18 18 18 18 13 M 6 A 111 22 15 57 53.6038 2 2 1 2 3 18 21 18 21 14 M 6 C 100 20 33 37 40.3962 2 2 1 2 2 18 15 18 18 15 M 6 C 104 24 33 41 44.3962 1 2 2 2 1 18 15 18 18 16 M 6 c 99 32 21 61 64.3962 2 2 1 2 3 15 15 18 15 17 M 6 A 102 20 22 48 44.6038 2 2 2 2 3 15 18 18 18 18 M 6 A 122 38 30 58 54.6038 3 2 3 1 3 21 18 18 18 19 M 6 C 101 30 21 59 62.3962 3 2 1 2 3 21 15 21 15 20 M 6 A 91 29 18 61 57.6038 2 2 2 3 2 18 18 18 18 21 M 6 C 108 27 36 41 44.3962 2 3 2 3 3 15 18 18 21 22 M 6 C 95 34 29 55 51.6038 2 2 3 2 3 18 24 18 18 23 F 6 A 87 26 32 44 47.3962 3 2 1 2 2 15 18 18 18 24 F 6 A 99 29 28 51 47.6038 3 2 2 2 3 18 15 18 18 25 F 6 A 108 17 12 55 51.6038 2 2 3 3 2 18 18 18 18 26 F 6 A 94 29 33 46 49.3962 3 2 3 1 2 18 24 18 24 27 F 6 A 91 19 22 47 50.3962 2 2 3 2 1 18 18 15 18 28 F 6 C 99 25 18 57 53.6038 2 2 1 2 3 15 24 18 18 29 F 6 A 100 15 12 53 49.6038 3 2 3 1 2 18 18 21 21 30 F 6 C 104 30 29 49 52.3962 3 2 3 2 3 18 18 15 18 31 F 6 C 89 27 24 47 50.3962 3 3 1 1 3 15 21 18 18 32 M 8+ c 145 50 48 52 55.3962 1 2 2 2 2 9 21 18 21 33 M 8+ c 110 40 35 55 51.6038 2 2 3 2 1 18 18 18 18 34 M &f c 105 25 26 49 45.6038 2 2 3 3 3 21 18 21 18 35 M 8+ c 91 25 28 47 50.3962 2 2 3 2 3 24 12 27 15 36 M 8+ c 98 25 31 44 47.3962 3 3 1 1 2 18 18 21 15 37 M 8+ c 114 33 21 62 58.6038 2 3 3 2 3 18 18 18 18 152 I TABLE 33 (Continued) Reading Course Test Experi. Diff. Adjusted Stu.Quest. Teacher-Judges Totals N Sex Level Track IQ Score Score +50 Difference 12 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 38 P Sf C 99 35 30 45 48.3962 3 2 3 3 2 18 21 18 21 39 P 8f A 110 20 17 53 49.6038 3 2 3 2 2 21 18 18 18 40 P 8+ A 89 14 21 43 46.3962 2 2 3 2 3 18 18 18 18 41 F A 98 19 28 41 44.3962 2 2 3 2 2 18 18 21 18 42 F 8+ A 92 21 18 53 49.6038 2 3 2 3 2 18 18 15 18 43 F 8+ A 99 34 20 64 60.6038 2 2 3 2 2 15 18 15 18 44 F 8+ C 108 37 27 60 63.3962 3 2 3 1 3 18 18 21 18 45 F 8+ A 102 28 26 52 48.6038 3 2 2 3 2 18 18 18 21 46 F 8+ C 114 37 24 63 59.6038 2 2 2 2 3 18 21 21 21 47 F 8+ C 110 44 45 49 52.3962 3 2 3 2 3 12 15 18 18 48 F 8+ A 117 21 32 39 42.3962 2 2 2 2 3 18 18 18 21 H ui oo A P P E N D I X P S AMP L E OP FORM L AND M DAT VERBAL R E A S 0 N I N G T E1ST FORM L V E R B A L R E A S O N I N G N U M E R I C A L A B I L I T Y Do not open this booklet until you are told to do so. On the SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET, print your name and fill in the other requested information in the proper spaces. In the space after Form, blacken the space for the letter L . Then wait for further instructions. DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS IN THIS BOOKLET Copyright 1947, < E > 1961. All righte reeerved. The Peychologicel Corporation 104 E att 43th Street New York 17. N. Y. Printed in U.S.A. Keg. U.S. Pol. Off. M-um How to M ark a n A n s w e r S h e e t The Differential Aptitude Tests have been carefully con structed to help you to learn about your abilities. Careless mark ing of your answer sheets may lower the scores you earn on these tests. It is therefore important that you follow the re quirements for proper marking of your answers. 1. Use the proper pencil. When answer sheets are scored by machine, only special lead will register properly. Do not use ordinary pencils. 2. Make neat, solid marks. A mark which is not solid may be missed by the scoring machine. A mark which extends too far beyond the dotted lines may be read as an answer to another question. Fill in the space completely. 3. Erase cleanly. Poorly erased marks may be picked up as intended answers. If you wish to change an answer, make sure you erase completely the mark you want to change. 4. Do not rest your pencil on the answer sheet. This may cause a stray mark— and Btray marks of any kind may be picked up by the machine as intended answers. Remember: Careless marks may lower your scores. Correct scoring requires proper marking of your answer sheet. 2 Do not moke any marks la tills booklet VERBAL REASONING Mark your answers on the separate Answer Sheet DIRECTIONS Find the space for Verbal Reasoning on the Answer Sheet. Each of the fifty sentences in this test has the first word and the last word left out. You are to pick out words which will fill the blanks so that the sentence will be true and sensible. For each sentence you are to choose from among five pairs of words to fill the blanks. The first word of the pair you choose goes in the blank space at the beginning of the sentence; the second word of the pair goes in the blank at the end of the sentence. When you have picked the pair to fill in the blanks, mark the letter of that pair on the separate Answer Sheet after the number of the sentence you are working on. Drink is to water as eat is to food. Drink is the first word of pair C and food is the second word of pair C, so the space under C has been filled in on line X on the sample Answer Sheet below. Example X................ is to water as eat is to A. continue drive B. foot — enemy C. drink — food D. girl industry E. drink — enemy • Now look at the next example. Example Y................ is to night as breakfast is t o ......... Supper is to night as breakfast is to morning. Pair E has both supper and morning; supper fits in the blank at the beginning of the sentence A. B. C. D. E. supper - gentle - door — flow — supper — comer — morning • comer enjoy — morning Now look at the next example. Example Z................ is to one as second is to and morning fits in the blank at the end. On the sample Answer Sheet, the space under E has been blackened on line Y to show that pair E is the right one. A. B. C. D. E. two — first — queen first — rain — middle ■ fire — hill ■ two •fire First is to one as second is to two. First fits in the blank at the beginning of the sentence, and two belongs in the blank at the end. First and two make up pair D, so the space under D is filled in on line Z of the sample Answer Sheet. Fill in only one space for each sentence. Sample op Answer Sheet You will have 30 minutes for this test. Work as rapidly and as accurately as you can. If you are not sure of an answer, mark the choice which is your best guess. DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU A RE TOLD TO DO SO. 3 1.................is to street as rd. is to A. st. — d ty B. lo. — dty C. st. — road D. m a. road E. st. — France 2............... is to cavalry as foot is to A. horse----- travel B. horse infantry C. horse----- yard D. cemetery yard E. horse----- armory 3...............is to wide as thin is to A. narrow weight B. store------ present C. narrow------ fat D. nothing — fat E. street — weight 4...............is to masculine as woman is to A. man — madame B. malidous feminine C. malidous — girl D. man — feminine E. man — girl 5 ......is to dispute as endure is to A. argue invert B. repute — verdure C. impute — verdure D. impute last E. argue — last 6 ...... is to verse as sculptor i6 to A. poet----artist B. poet statue C. music — statue D. reverse — statue E. reverse artist 7. ..........is to chain as bead is to A. link — pearl B. watch------pearl C. iron------ necklace D. pull------ necklace E. link------ necklace 8.................is to animal as rind is to A. husk — melon B. skin nut C. skin melon D. man — hard E. husk — nut 9...............is to cork as box is to A. bottle---- lid B. bottle---- crate C. bottle---- hat D.--- bottle---- fight E. brittle — crate 1 0...............is to tusk as deer is t o .......... A. elephant — — doe B. ivory doe C. elephant — antler D. ivory antler E. ivory — hunt 1 1...............is to contralto as tenor is to A. singer------song B. sonata baritone C. solo song D. solo------baritone E. soprano-----baritone 1 2...............is to hang as guillotine is to A. gallows------behead B. criminal — behead C. picture---- capitulate D. picture---- behead E. punish-----citizen 1 3.................is to tree as melon is to ... A. apple------vine B. bush — vine C. elm water D. elm — ripe E. bush------ sweet 14...............is to pea as shell is to A. green nut B. pod — crack C. green — peel D. green — crack E. pod — nut 4 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. 1 5.............. is to steer as pork is t o ........... A. cow-----pig B. beef pig C. bull — pig D. beef chop E. bull-----chop 1 6...............is to sentence as sentence is to A. jail phrase B. word paragraph C. word — phrase D. jail paragraph E. jail fine 1 7...............is to Dick as Margaret is to A. Richard Mary B. Francis — Frances C. William Peggy D. Richard Peggy E. Richard — Joan 18.............is to childhood as adolescence is to A. infantry — adultery B. infancy----- maturity C. infantry intelligence D. infancy----- adultery E. health — intelligence 19...............is to potato as beater is to A. mashed — egg B. skin steak C. skin — egg D. masher winner E. masher — egg 2 0.................. is to dog as Guernsey is to A. terrier cow B. bark — cow C. tail------cow D. tail------Jersey E. bark — Jersey 2 1.................. is to top as base is to .... A. spin — bottom B. side bottom C. spin — ball D. apex bottom E. ibex bottom 2 2...............is to eagle as Pekinese is to A. sparrow — collie B. sparrow — Chinese C. flag — Chinese r D. vulture — Chinese - E. vulture crow _ 2 3...............is to river as coast is to A. flood beach B. tide sea C. bank sea D. flood sea E. tide beach 24...............is to foot as elbow is to A. toe — shoulder B. toe hand. C. knee — hand D. m an hand E. knee — shoulder 2 5...... is to day as calendar is to'.... A. noon year B. sun year C. night — year D. sun March E. clock year 2 6.......is to constitution as prologue is to A. preamble play B. independence epilogue C. independence — play D. law — epilogue E. amendment — epilogue 2 7...... is to proceed as stop is to.... A. recede — prevent B. intercede — prevent C. halt — go D. profit go E. intercede — go 28.................is to horse as bray is to A. neigh donkey B. hoof----donkey C. saddle — wagon D. hoof----wagon E. hoof----pony 5 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. 2 9............... is to sea as rebellion is to .. A. navy war B. m utiny------land C. sailor------war D. sailor — soldier E. river revolting 3 0............... is to distance as pound is to A. far — ounce B. far — weight C. travel —— ounce D. ro d — — ounce E. rod — weight 3 1............... is to door as pane is t o ____ A. lock — window B. panel — window C. home window D. lock — glass E. wood — ache 32. is to never as all is to ... A. seldom------ whole B. seldom every C. always — every D. seldom------ none E. always — none 3 3............... is to future as regret is to A. ahead-------past B. ahead-----sins C. hope past D. ahead-------atone E. forecast------ atone 3 4............... is to rain as levee is to A. w ater------ departure B. water ■ ■ rise C. w ater-----wash D. umbrella flood E. cloud----- rise 35................. is to fish as gun is to A. bait — shot B. cod------ trigger C. ro d ------ shot • D. cod------ bullet E. ro d hunt 36................is to pacifist as religion is to A. atlantis — minister B. object minister C. atlantis — sacred D. w ar atheist E. conscience minister 37................is to deft as awkward is to A. clumsy stupid B. hearing — stupid C. hearing — ugly D. clumsy — skillful E. blindness skillful 38............... iB to nut as hook is to A. bolt------- eyehole B. fruit — pitch C. fruit bend D. bolt ' bend „ E. hazel------- bend 3 9................is to land as knot is t o ........... A. acre-------rope B. mile-------sea C. desert — rop? D. mile meter E. farm — rope 4 0................is to bird as shed is t o .......... A. fly------ barn B. fly------ dog C. fly------ hay D. moult — dog E. m igrate bam 4 1............... is to physician as secretary is to A. doctor —— office B. nurse executive C. doctor stenographer D. medicine office E. medicine executive 42............... is to England as lira is to A. pound Italy B. London------money C. London------Mexico D. London------mandolin E. London------Italy 6 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. 4 3...............is to city-as national is to . A. mayor----- government B. municipal — country C. Chicago government D. mayor----- country E. Chicago —— international 4 4...............is to prison as Louvre is to A. warden-----paramour B. warden-----museum C. warden-----France D. Bastille---- museum E. crime — artist 45. is to Canada as Havana is to A. Nome Cuba B. Detroit — Cuba C. Toronto Cuba D. Alberta — Cuba E. Alberta Florida 46...............is to opera as lyric is to A. baritone music B. baritone poem C. composer — music D. composer----- song E. drama — song /S'# 4 7............. is to bleach as flushed is t o ......... A. color drained B. color — truffle C. color — blushed. D. color wan E. gay drained 4 8.............. is to static as dynamic is t o ......... A. inert----- active B. radio active C. radio — speaker D. inert speaker E. radio motor 4 9.............. is to all.as part is to ......... A. full------separate B. each — separate C. each------many D. full many E. each — whole 5 0.............. is to diamond as circle is to . / ___ A. gold — round B. square------ovak C. shape round D. cube------round E. square------ round STOP. YOU MAY CHECK YOUR WORK ON THIS TEST. DO NOT TURN TO THE OTHER TEST. /*9 Do not make u r m if c ila tUa booklet NUMERICAL ABILITY DIRECTIONS Find the space for Numerical Ability on the Answer Sheet. Tins test consists of forty numerical problems. Next to each problem there are five answers. You are to pick out the correct answer and fill in the space under its letter on the separate Answer Sheet. If you do not find a correct answer among the first four choices, blacken the space under E as your answer. Choice E for every problem is "none of these” which means that a correct answer is not among the first four choices. Only one answer should be marked for each problem. Do your figuring on the scratch paper you have been given, and reduce fractions to lowest terms. The following are examples of problems in the test. The sample of the Answer Sheet shows how you are to mark your answers. Example X. Add IS 12 A 14 B 25 C D E 16 59 none of these In Example X, 25 is the coiTect answer, so the space under the letter for 25—B—has been filled in. Sample op Answer Sheet Example Y. Subtract 30 A 15 20 B 26 C 16 D 8 E none of these In Example Y, the correct answer has not been given, so the space under the letter for "none of these"—E—has been blackened. Remember, each answer must be reduced to its simplest terms. For example, if two choices are I Vi and 1 V4, only the 1 Vi is correct. DO ALL YOUR FIGURING ON THE SEPARATE SHEET OF SCRATCH PAPER. You will have 30 minutes for this test. Work as rapidly and as accurately as you can. Do not spend a long time on any one problem. If you are not sure of an answer, mark the choice which is your best guess. DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO. 9 Add M3 4658 8790 67 Subtract 547S 2987 Multiply 484 25 Multiply 2.04 .75 Multiply 4.50 22 Multiply .025 .025 Multiply .016 .016 Answer A 7908 B 8608 C 8898 D 8908 E none of these A 2485 B 2486 C 2496 D 3486 E none of these A 10900 B 11100 C 11900 D 11700 E none of these A 1.5300 B 153.0 C 1530 D 15300 E none of these A .99 B 98.40 C 99.00 D 9900 E none of these A .001375 B .00625 C .625 D 1.375 E none of these A 256 B 25.6 C .00256 D .000256 E none of these 8. D ivide 46759“ 9. Divide .757228- 13. 10. Divide 3.677RT 11 . Divide 64.7)304.09 12. Divide .04)4.036 14. U ! 4 8 7 7 Answer A l» /4 « B l« /4 6 C 1.5 D 15 E none of these A .0003 B .03 C .3 D 3 E none of these A .02 B .2 C 2 D 20 E none of these A .47 B 4.07 C 4.7 D 47 E * none of these A 1.009 B 10.9 C 10.09 D 100.9 E none of these A Vi 2 B »/. C H D 2 E none of these A •/,• B »/7 C % D ®/7 E none of these 10 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. 15. 19. 3 X 10 5 X 9 16. Add 4*4 * Vi 1L& 17. Add 2 fL 3 in. 28 ft 11 Vi in- 1 7 ft Sin. 4 Vj In. 18. Add 3 lbs. 3 or. 6 lbs. 7 or. 7 lbs. 5 or. 11 lbs. 1 or. Square root Vl69 20. Square root y/M 21. Square root 1 v 25 9 36 Answer A *Vso B I Vi C *o/4s D % E none of these A 26 n/14 B 27 Vi C 28 Vi D 28 *1/14 E none of these A 49 ft B 48 ft 2 in. C 47 ft 24 in. D 4 8 ft E none of these A 28 lbs. 16 or. B 28 lbs. C 27 lbs. 16 or. D 18 lbs. E none of these A 13 B 43 C 84 Vi D 169 E none of these A .03 B .3 C 3 D 9 E none of these A «/.» B «/« C 5/, D 2 % E none of these 22. 7 = 33l% of 963 23. 7 = 12}% of 816 24. 7 = I of 648 25. 15 - 75Jg of 7 26. 25 = 7 % of 125 27. 2.5 = 7 % of 2 28. 1 _ JL 8 " 24 Answer A 32.19 B 231 C 321 D 32100 E none of these A .12 B 12 C 102 D 104 E none of these A 14.58 B 72 C 218 D 1458 E none of these A .20 B 10.25 C 20 D 22.5 E none of these A */, B 5 C 20 D 31.25 E none of these A 5 B 8 C 80 D 125 E none of these A Vi B 1 C 3 D 4 E none of these 11 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. i i p r m m n APTITHIK TESTS (Rev.) Georg* K. B e u ett R m U G . A leu ad o rC . We J / do / FORM M V E R B A L R E A S O N I N G N U M E R I C A L A B IL IT Y Do not open this booklet until you are told to do so. On the SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET, print your name and fill in the other requested information in the proper spaces. In the space after Form, blacken the space for the letter M. Then wait for further instructions. DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS IN THIS BOOKLET Copyright 1947, < E > 1961. All right* reserved, The Psychological Corporation 704 E*»t4Sth Street Printed In U.S.A. N*w Yotk ,,f N> Y‘ 4 ' Rag. U.S. Pot. Oil. »w n How 10 M ark a n An sw e r Sh e e t The Differential Aptitude Teet» have been carefully con structed to help you to learn about your abilities. Careless mark ing of your answer sheets may lower the scores you earn on these tests. It is therefore important that you follow the re quirements for proper marking of your answers. 1. Use the proper pendL When answer sheets are scored by machine, only special lead will register properly. Do not use ordinary pencils. 2. Make neat, solid marks. A mark which is not solid may be missed by the scoring machine. A mark which extends too far beyond the dotted lines may be read as an answer to another question. Fill in the space completely. S. Erase cleanly. Poorly erased marks may be picked up as intended answers. If you wish to change an answer, make sure you erase completely the mark you want to change. 4. Do not rest your pencil on the answer sheet. This may cause a stray mark— and stray marks of any kind may be picked up by the machine as intended answers. Remember: Careless marks may lower your scores. Correct scoring requires proper marking of your answer sheet. 2 Answer Answer 29. 5 _ 65 9 ” ? 30. 33. 34. 11 77 4 " 7 31. Cube root ^32 X 2 32. Cube root <^.000729 Cube root \ 8 64 Lbt price = $75.00 Discounts - 33*/s% ; 2% Net price - $ ? A B5/„ B II C 45 D 99 E none of these A TT/ 1# B 28 C 44 D 308 E none of these A 4 B 8 C 211/, D 192 E none of these A .000243 B .009 C .027 D .09 E none of these A % B ” 5 / m C 2% D 15% E none of these A B C D E 25 48.50 49.50 50 none of these 35. What one number can replace both question 40. marks? 2 T _7_ 50 A 1 B 10 C 25 D 100 E none of these 36. What one number can replace both question marks? 1 _ 36 A 6 B 12 C 35 D 36 E none of these 37. What one number can replace both question marks? 4 ? 100 A 1 B 20 C 25 D 200 E none of these 38. What one number can replace both question marks? 8 7 12% A 1% B 4 C 64 D 100 E none of these 39. What one number can replace both question marks? 6.25 ? ]_ 1 6 A 4 B 10 C 16 D 50 E none of these 9 + 1 X 6 - 3 4 + 2 X 7 - 6 A B C D E 5 7 /so l7 /ta 1 5 7 /ss none of these STOP. YOU MAY CHECK YOUR WORK ON THIS TEST. DO NOT TURN BACK TO THE OTHER TEST. 12 /6-Z Do not make any m ark* in tUa booklet VERBAL REASONING a s DIRECTIONS Find the space for Verbal Reasoning on the Answer Sheet. Each of the fifty sentences in this test has the first word and the last word left out. You are to pick out words which will fill the blanks 90 that the sentence will be true and sensible. For each sentence you are to choose from among five pairs of words to fill the blanks. The first word of the pair you choose goes in the blank space at the beginning of the sentence; the second word of the pair goes in the blank at the end of the sentence. When you have indeed the pair to fill in the blanks, mark the letter of that pair on the separate Answer Sheet after the number of the sentence you are working on. Example X................ is to water as eat is to A. continue drive B. foot —— enemy C. drink food D. girl industry E. drink enemy Drink is to water as eat is to food. Drink is the first word of pair C and food is the second word of pair C, so the space under Chas been filled in on line X on the sample Answer Sheet below. Now look at the next example. Example Y................ is to night as breakfast is to A. supper------comer B. gentle------morning C. door comer D. flow — enjoy E. supper morning Now look at the next example. Example Z................is to one as second is to Supper is to night as breakfast iB to morning. Pair E has both supper and morning; supper fits in the blank at the beginning of the sentence and morning fits in the blank at the end. On the sample Answer Sheet, the space under E has been blackened on line Y to show that pair E is the right one. A. B. C. D. E. two — first — queen' first — rain — middle • fire — lull ■ two • fire first is to one as second is to two. First fits in the blank at the beginning of the sentence, and two belongs in the blank at the end. first and two make up pair D, so the space under D is filled in on line Z of the sample Answer Sheet. Fill in only one space for each sentence. Sample of Answer Sheet i You will have 30 minutes for this testi Work as rapidly and as accurately as you can. If you are not sure of an answer, mark the chaice which is your best guess. DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO. 3 is to track as automobile is to A. train — truck B. quite----- road C. quite — — - million D. train road E. yellow----- star iB to butter as coffee is to A. bread---- pour B. cow— -cream C. bread---- cream D. bread---- hot E. grow — cream is to auto as Remington is to A. Buick — tapioca B. Flagship — typewriter C. Buick typewriter D. Mikado — typewriter E. Calumet typewriter is to land as navy is to A. ground — sea B. army — air C. arrive — sea D. arm y sea E. ship sea is to painting as Galileo is to A. Michelangelo----- science B. Gilbert — science C. Michelangelo histrionics D. Michelangelo poetry E. Gilbert histrionics is to dark as white is to A. evening snow B. evening — light C. black light D. black — snow E. suit snow is to answer as ask is to A. question — know B. question reply C. yes------ reply D. chance reply E. yes------ know 8.............. is to man as hoof is to A. woman------ horse B. foot — horse C. foot------blacksmith D. house------ horse E. job blacksmith 9................is to window as panel is to A. view----- door B. pane----- door C. shade — - door D. lock----- cloth E. pane — metal 10.............. is to largest as Rhode Island iB to A. Alaska smallest B. giant---- smallest C. giant---- Providence D. giant---- state E. Alaska — Providence 11.............. is to foot as hat is to A. toe----head B. ankle — head C. stocking-------band D. stocking-------head E. toe — band 12.............. is to hard as bituminous is to A. arduous soft B. alloy soft C. anthracite soft D. anthrax soft E. alloy — double-edged 13.............. is to steel as Chicago is to A. Pittsburgh — Illinois B. Pittsburgh — mining C. Pittsburgh meat D. New York-------meat E. New York-------mining 14................is to horse as chauffeur is to A. mane---- auto B. jockey — auto C. stable---- auto D. mane---- owner E. mane---- uniform 4 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. /<Z>3 15.............. is to virtue as sophistication is to A. religion smartness B. reality smartness C. vice debutante D. vice — smartness E. vice innocence 16.............. is to building as designer is to A. architect — — clothes B. roof------ artist C. roof------ clothes D. cement clothes E. roof------ modiste 17. is to telephone as Edison is to A. Bell phonograph B. Bell telegraph C. Morse------ telegraph D. Bell radio E. Morse------ phonograph 18.............. is to theater as client is to A. ticket lawyer . B. ticket — patient C. ticket — owner D. loge — lawyer E. patron lawyer 19.............. is to England as Bremen is to A. Wales — Germany B. Liverpool Denmark C. Scotland Denmark D. Wales Austria E. Liverpool — Germany 20.............. is to sheep as beef i6 to A. wool----- steer B. wool steak C. mutton roast D. mutton — steer E. wool leather 21.............. is to barter as wager is to A. trade — employer B. trade war C. trade gamble D. drinker —— gamble E. hurdle — — gamble 22................is to panther as dog is to A. jungle------ home B. c a t bark C. cat — wolf D. jungle------ bark E. prey bark 23.............. is to twelve as two is to A. fourteen one B. nine — three C. four-----six D. nine---- six E. four-----one 24................are to car as runners are to A. brakes-----sled B. brakes-----race C. wheels-----race D. streets-----tracks E. wheels-----sled 25.............. is to composer as Whitman is to A. Brahms------ poet B. Brahms------ musician C. Van Gogh poet D. Riley — poet E. Dali musician 26................is to stem as port is to A. bow-------shipping B. bow-------land C. strict —— shipping D. hull shipping E. bow-------starboard 27.............. is to train as toll is to A. track bridge B. fare bridge C. engine bridge D. engine — bell E. passenger bridge 28................ is to towel as ink is to A. cloth------ pen B. dry pen C. cloth------ blotter D. water pen E. water — blotter 5 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. is to giant as diminutive is to 36. is to lattice as renegade is to A. huge------ colossal B. dwarf------ colossal C. huge------ subservient D. dwarf — hourly E. dwarf subservient i is to cell as hospital is to A. prison patient B. criminal — patient C. criminal doctor D. prison — ward E. guard — doctor — is to negate as aver is to A. affirm prevent B. affirm — — avoid C. candy — — avoid D. affirm deny E. affirm cause is to horse as hockey is to A. rein — skates B. polo skates C. rein stick D. race — goal E. b it puck is to wire as radio is to . A. telephone-------program B. telephone------ television C. copper television D. copper program E. telephone — wireless is to bit as hammer is to A. drill---- pound B. gore---- pound C. little — pound D. drill---- chisel E. wrench pound is to cigarette as refuse is to A. brand deny B. ash deny C. ash food D. lighter discard E. lighter — accept: A. vegetable — deserter B. vegetable — ruler C. former ruler D. trellis deserter E. tool — ruler 37. is to fiction as verity is to A. poetry — truth B. fact — myth C. heat extremity D. fact — truth E. heat truth 38.............. is to king as gavel is to A. kingdom------road B. queen------ road C. queen------Judge D. scepter — judge E. kingdom------judge 39.............. is to jewelry as foot is to A. diamond body B. carat body C. diamond yard D. gold body E. carat------distance 40................ is to grape as whiskey is to A. vine bar B. wine----- highball C. fruit----- bar D. wine wheat E. wine----- bar 41................ is to tame as lion is to A. train wild B. train hunt C. timid — wild D. train — tiger E. cow wild 42.............. is to Moscow as Leaning Tower is to A. Russia----- Pisa B. Russia-------Babylon C. Russia Crete D. Kremlin Pisa E. Kremlin Italy 6 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. /&</ 4 3.............. is to pacific as tumult is to A. atlantic — ocean B. atlantic-----penult C. atlantic-----verdant D. tranquil riot E. tranquil ocean 4 4.............. is to leather as sable is to . A. pig fur B. shoe----- expensive C. tanner — fur D. shoe----- coat E. shoe-----fur 4 5.............. iB to Othello as Dante iB to A. drama ballet B. drama poet C. Shakespeare-----Inferno D. Shakespeare-----poet E. Shakespeare ballet 4 6.............. is to doe as ram is t o ......... A. stag------ewe B. deer------goat C. fawn------goat D. deer------rod E. deer------boar 4 7................ is to praise as derogatory is to . A. hon o r-----flatter B. laudatory — disdain C. h o n o r-----derelict D. hon o r-----rogue E. laudatory rogue 4 8................ is to slovenly as imperative is to A. ablative unnecessary B. fastidious unnecessary C. fastidious royal D. fastidious impulsive E. dism al impulsive 4 9................ is to temperate as hot is t o ----- A. clim ate cold B. tro p ic-----mild C. m oderate cold D. clim ate temperature E. tro p ic-----cold 5 0................ is to shadow as capital is to . . . A. substance credit B. s u n merit C. s u n balance D. g h o st credit E. la m p -------balance STOP. YOU MAY CHECK YOUB WORK ON THIS TEST. DO NOT TURN TO THE OTHER TEST. 7 Do not nuke any muki in thia booklet NUMERICAL ABILITY DIRECTIONS Mark vour nnswers on tne separate Answer Sheet Find the space for Numerical Ability on the Answer Sheet. This test consists of forty numerical problems. Next to each problem there are five answers. You are to pick out the correct answer and fill in the space under its letter on the separate Answer Sheet. If you do not find a correct answer among the first four choices, blacken the space under E as your answer. Choice E for every problem is “none of these" which means that a correct answer is not among the first four choices. Only one answer should be marked for each problem. Do your figuring on the scratch paper you have been given, and reduce fractions to lowest terms. The following are examples of problems in the test. The sample of the Answer Sheet shows how you are to mark your answers. Example X. Add 13 12 A 14 B 25 C D E 15 59 none of these In Example X, 25 is the correct answer, so the space under the letter for 25—B— has been filled in. Sample of Answer Sheet Example Y. Subtract 30 A 15 20 B 26 C 16 D 8 E none of these In Example Y, the correct answer has not been given, so the space under the letter for “none of these"—E—has been blackened. Remember, each answer must be reduced to its simplest terms. For example, if two choices are 1 Vi and 1 a / 4, only the 1 Vi is correct. DO ALL YOUR FIGURING ON THE SEPARATE SHEET OF SCRATCH PAPER. You will have 30 minutes for this test. Work as rapidly and as accurately as you can. Do not spend a long time on any one problem. If you are not sure of an answer, mark the choice which is your best guess. DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO. 9 Answer Add 2394 697 5769 58 Subtract 9728 7893 Multiply 64 75 Multiply 2.40 25 Multiply 35 .30 Multiply .015 .015 Multiply .014 .014 A 948 B 8838 8846 8848 none of U r C D E A 835 B 1635 C 1835 D 1935 E none of th A 4600 B 4700 C 4780 D 5300 E none of these A 40.00 B 60.00 C 1000 D 6000 E none of these A 9.50 B 10.50 C 10.85 D 1050 E none of these A .000215 B .000825 C .0225 D .225 E none of these A 196 B 19.6 C .00196 D .000196 E none of these 8. Divide 38J9T" 9. Divide .24J9X 10. Divide 14. 1.8J34- 11. Divide 43.9)136.09 12. Divide .06J61S2 13. 3 6 9 9 Answer A 2 B 2.5 C 2 t» /„ D 25 E none of th A .4 B 4 C 40 D 400 E none of these A .03 B .3 C 3 D 30 E none of these A .31 B 3.0 C 3.1 D 31 E none of these A 1.007 B 1.07 C 10.07 D 100.7 E none of these A l/»a B C D E 1 2 none of these A */si B Vs C % D •/* E none of these 10 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. / 15. S X 7 14 X 10 16. Add 17 V* 81/, gy« 17. Add 7 l t l l ^ k . 18 ft. 7 to. • ft Ota. 18. Add 19. 5 lbs. 5 ox. 27 Um. 14 os. S lb*. 7 os. It Dm. 4 os. S f M N N O t %/ItS 20. Square root y/AT 21. Sqssre root » v i 25 4t Answer of th A 84 ft B 81 ft 88 to. C 8 2 ft D 2 4 ft E BOMof tb A 55 lbs. 82 ox. B 5511m . C 5411m . D 54 Dm . 82 os. E B O M o f t b A IS B 14 C 4t D 88 E of tb A .02 B .04 C .2 D 2 E B O M of tb i A •/*» B •4/i**b C 7 * t/„ D ltt/M E n o n e o f t b 22. 7 “ 648% of 49 23. ? - 12j%ofl606 24. 25. 18 - 75%ofT 26. 20 - 7 % of 400 27. 5 = ? Jgoff 28. 1-15 7 " 85 Answer A 28 B 44 C 54 D E M M O f tbCM A .21 B 21 C IN D 801 E m m of tbroc A 20 B 84 C 87 D 44 E b o m o f th e s e A .24 B 12 C 24 D 27 E BO M of tb A 5 B 20 C 80 D Vio E b o m of tbroc A l » / 4 B 20 C 80 D 125 E b o b o of tbroe A */7 B «/t C 3 D 5 E b o b o of tb r o e 11 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. Answer Answer 35. What one number can replace both question marks? A 3 2 ? 88 - - — C 9 * 18 D 36 E none of these 36. What one number can replace both question marks? A 1 1 ? 88 - - — c 32 7 64 D 64 E none of these 37. What one number can replace both question marks? A S 4 r B 6»/4 hi C 7 7 25 D 10 E none of these 38. What one number can replace both question marks? A */i4 4 V 4 ? B 7 T = 32 C 8% 7 32 D 14 E none of these 39. What one number can replace both question marks? 2 12 3 " 7 7 56 I ” ? 31. Cube root V'S X 27 32. Cube root V'400343 33. Cube root 34. List price = $80.00 Discounts = 25*; 256 Net price = f ? A w /lt B 4 C 8 D 18 E none of these A «/ti B 8 C 63 D 72 E none of these A 6 B 7 C 18 D 72 E none of these A .000114 B .000114 i/3 C .000116 1 / , D .07 E none of these A s /iooo 8 */io C 333 1/, D. 1000 E none of these A 39.20 B 40.00 C 58.40 D 59.80 E none of these 8 _?_ ? = 24.5 8 + 6 X 5 - 2 7 + 3 X 4 - 1 A 1 4 B 3.5 C 3.0% D 3 E none of these A «•/*» B l » / s t C 2 D 107 E none of these STOP. YOU MAY CHECK YOUR WORK ON THIS TEST. DO NOT TURN BACK TO THE OTHER TEST. 12 APPENDIX G ANALYSIS OP RAW DATA TABLE 34 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE RAW DIFFERENCE SCORES ACHIEVED UNDER QUIET, 751, 851, 75S, AND 85S db LEVELS** Source of Variation SS DF MS F Between Groups 288.117 4 72.029 1.626* Within Groups 12,222.758 276 44.285 Total 12,510.875 280 *The F-ratio did cance. **S denotes steady not attain the .05 level of signifi- noise, I Intermittent. MEANS AND ACHIEVED TABLE STANDARD DEVIATIONS UNDER QUIET, 751, 35 : OF 851, THE RAW DIFFERENCE SCORES 75S AND 85S db LEVELS* Level N Mean SD Quiet 53 49.811 6.522 751 6l 50.426 6.100 851 73 50.452 6.500 75S 46 52.978 7.295 85S 48 50.667 7.057 *S denotes steady noise, I intermittent. 169 TABLE 36 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RAW DIFFERENCE SCORES OF SUBGROUPS WITH IQ'3 (0-88), (89-113), AND (ll4+) Group and Condition Source of Variance SS DF MS F I Control Between Groups 3.077 2 1.539 0.035* Within Groups Total 2 2 0 9 .0 3 6 2212.113 j52 44.181 II 751 Between Groups Within Groups Total 1 7 0 .6 3 6 2 0 6 2 .2 8 2 2232.918 2 g 85.318 35.557 2.400* III 851 Between Groups 205.422 2 102.7H 2 .535* Within Groups Total 2 8 3 6 .6 6 1 3042.0b2 12 72 40.524 IV 75S Between Groups 22.603 2 1 1 .3 0 2 0 . 2 0 5* Within Groups Total 2372.375 5354-.57H % 55.172 V 85s Between Groups 1 0 0 .8 5 6 2 50.428 1 .0 1 3* Within Groups Total 2 2 3 9 .8 1 1 2340.667 49.774 *The F-ratio did not attain the .05 level of sig nificance . 170 TABLE 37 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RAW DIFFERENCE SCORES OF MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS Group and Condition Source of Variance DF MS I Control Between Groups M.980 Within Total Groups 21t'( . VdH al 22V<t ill’ 1 SI $2 HU .9h9 1 .0‘ 3‘ i U2 . J ld3 II 751 Between Groups .oil o.oi Within Groups Pd'^d . l</{ Total. ?/d J'd .'«i f 7 III 851 Between Gr , . j r . ~ > ' r A \ Within Or .,ps To t a, . ■ IV 75S Bet weer. Gr- .: ; > Within Gr . .: s To t a 1 V 85S Between Or... Witnin Gr , p; s Total - i P- The F-ratlo lid significance. at v a 171 TABLE 38 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RAW DIFFERENCE SCORES OF SUBGROUPS DETERMINED BY DIRECTION OF BLAME AS INDICATED ON STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES Group and Condition Source of Variance SS DF MS F I Control II 751 III 851 IV 75S V 85S Between OroupB 1.226 Within 0roup3 2210.887 Total 52lStTT3 Between Groups 111.635 Within Group3 2121.283 Total 2232.91& Between Groups 230.398 Within Groups Total 2811.684 3042.082 Between Groups 209 .8 9 8 Within Groups Total 2185.080 Between Groups 88.538 Within Groups Total 2252.128 2340.bb7 0.613 0.014 50 44.218 >2 2 55.818 1.526 8 36.574 0 2 115.199 2.868* 70 40.167 72 2 104.949 2.065' * 4£ 50.816 2 44.269 0.885^ 45 50.047 W The F-ratlo did not attain the significance. .0 5 level of 172 TABLE 39 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RAW DIFFERENCE SCORES OF SUBGROUPS DETERMINED BY READING LEVEL Group and Condition Source of Variance SS DF MS F I Control Between Groups 51.073 2 25.536 0.591* Within Groups Total 2161.04l 2212.113 50 52 43.221 II 751 Between Groups Within Groups Total 99.673 2133.245 2232.91o 2 8 49.837 36.780 1.355* III 851 Between Groups 29.725 2 14.862 0.345* Within Groups Total 3012.357 3042.062 8 43.034 IV 75S Between Groups 49.946 2 24.973 0.458* Within Groups Total 2345.032 2394.'97B 8 54.536 V 85S Between Groups 53.676 2 26.838 0.528* Within Groups 2286.991 45 50.822 Total 2340.ouf 717 #The F-ratlo did not attain the .05 level of significance. 173 TABLE 40 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OP RAW DIFFERENCE SCORES OF SUBJECTS REPORTING THE EFFECT OF NOISE ON THEIR PERFORMANCE Group and Source of Condition Variance SS DF MS F II 751 Between Groups 13.321 2 6.l6l 0.l6l* Within Groups 2220.597 58 38.286 Total 2232.918 60 III „ 851 Between Groups 32.166 2 16.083 0.374 Within Groups 3009.916 70 42.999 Total 3042.082 72 IV * 75S Between Groups 71.761 2 35.881 0.664 Within Groups 2323.217 4£ 54.028 Total 2394.978 <75 v * 8 5S Between Groups 65.140 2 32.570 0.644 Within Groups 2275.526 45 50.567 3 4 0 .6 6 7 W Total 2 3 4 0 .6 6 7 47 *Tne P-ratio did not attain the .05 level of significance. APP E N DI X H SOUND LEVEL RAW DATA TABLE 41 SOUND LEVEL READINGS DURING FIRST DAY TESTING SITUATIONS Location or meter during db reading Quiet 751 851 75S 85S A 47.6 " 70.0 85.0 75.0 B 47.0 75.0 84.0 74.0 84.5 C 48.0 74,0. 85.0 74.0 85.5 D 48.0 75.0 84.0 75.0 84.0 E 49.0 70.0 84.0 76.0 86.0 F 50.0 74.0 86.0 77.0 85.O G 49.5 78.0 85.0 75.0 85.0 H 52.0 75.0 85.0 74.0 85.0 SOUND LEVEL READINGS TABLE 42 DURING SECOND DAY TESTING SITUATIONS Location ol meter during db reading 751 851 75S 85s A 75.0 85.0 7o.o 85.0 B 75.0 85.0 74.0 85.0 C 74.0 86.0 75.0 85.0 D 75.0 85.0 75.0 85.0 E 76.0 84.0 74.0 86.0 F 77.0 85.O 75.0 84.0 G 76.0 84.5 76.0 84.0 H 74.0 85.5 75.0 85.0 SOUND LEVEL READINGS TABLE 43 DURING THIRD DAY TESTING SITUATIONS Locatlon'.of meter during db reading 751 851 75S 85s A 75.0 b5.o 75-0 84.0 B 75.0 85.0 76.0 85.0 C 75.0 84.0 74.0 85.0 D 76.0 86.0 75.0 85.0 E 75.0 87.0 76.0 86.0 F 75.0 84.0 75.0 84.0 G 74.0 85.5 75.0 85.0 H 76.0 86.0 74.0 86.0 175 176 TABLE 44 SOUND LEVEL READINGS DURING FOURTH DAY TESTING SITUATIONS Location or meter during db reading 751 851 75S 85s A 75.0 85.0 75.0 85.0 B 74.5 84.0 76.0 85.0 C 75.0 86.0 74.0 85.O D 74.0 85.0 75.0 85.0 E 76.0 88.0 76.0 88.0 F 75.0 84.0 74.0 84.0 G 75.0 83.0 75.0 85.0 H 76.0 83.0 75.0 85.0 OTHER TABLE 45 SOUND LEVEL READINGS DB Readings taken at Covered approx. one minute Walkways During intervals Intermission Library 1st 66 62 2nd 68 64 3rd 70 65 4th 68 62 5th 74 64 6th 72 . 63 7th 80 65 I Nft f i SUBJECT DATE SIDE OR TRACK START POINT t & J l u i f ■»* - I ^ J / t / s e Ji£ J * t 7 * / h z T i / & / r A s f i e / A A ^ ' ± * / j s \ / J t s k Z t / t C * / S / l / J + ' r * 7 3 \ / s b r t A ' / s ' - f f ^ z / ’ £ * * , 9 r S a ■ / & > ' 79/ a . I / < ? * A ' ' 1 1 I| |I is 1 i j v m | w m ” | tiiinl ~ ^ ^ M i W | thrttwfct | 1 hUmln | Mmln |.. j t £ 4 J S ® ^ M l ' i h l , N u M i ! h i i l j i l Jv i l ' i : ^ ; !ss&* SPEED □ 1 MONOPHONIC I STEREOPHONIC □ 2 □ 4 TRA CK I D 2 □ < TRACK •*$ . 4 : ■ p , ' ^ ' - : • ■ » ' . . * ■ » . f 1 SUBJECT'. DATE ^^MsTAer taackI poini 1 ' M a w , I*// J-*iit-fl r^i | Z>/*5 *#- i ^ t o t * % * c/ S & c /aJ f k c ' f t k ^ /'ft J?/r/$St 1 fJv/iSSS' f t Z// d Z * £/> it t y e r»i Z » /jJ'a * >//* 1 / r / A ' ‘ 7 I \-, - ! - ■- ■ , ; . O C - y ■'.'’/ • ’ • 1 [SOUND TAPES f o r t h i s D is s e r ts - , ) ■ : . t i o n A v a ila b le f o r C o n su lta tio n i f , ■"“ “ a t u n iv e r s ity ox ooutticpn L<iH" f o r n ia L ib ra ry1. r <* t V * M O M M TWM HH FT. 1 i x n | win | win ■ I «KfMH | utmn 1 bn*i B SPEED 1 MONOPHONIC 1 STEREOPHONIC I f t t t l A H H I I H | □ 1 □ 2 □ 4 TRA CK | □ 2 Q 4 TRA CK ;v i - i: y - S t - " •-• v * '-• «i»{ . ‘ ■ V-t: -_i.^r *^%w

Linked assets

The effect of noise on intellectual performance as related to personality and social factors in upper division high school students

Conceptually similar

PDF

Auditory Perceptual Si Factors As Non-Predictors Of Reading Achievement In An Upper-Class And Upper-Middle-Class Population

PDF

Predicting Success In The Study Of Descriptive Linguistics

PDF

Effects Of Success And Failure On Impulsivity And Distractibility Of Three Types Of Educationally Handicapped Children

PDF

An Investigation Of Selected Ability, Aptitude, Interest, And Personalitycharacteristics Relevant To Success In High School Geometry

PDF

Transfer Of The Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Across Tasks In Normal And Retarded Boys

PDF

An Experimental Study Of The Effect Of Anxiety And Stress On The Group Intelligence Test Performance Of Elementary School Children

PDF

Effects Of Preschool Enrollment And Parent Participation On Academic Growth

PDF

A Study Of The Effectiveness Of Teaching Methods Of Study To Selected High School Freshmen

PDF

Confirmation Of Expectancy And Changes In Teachers' Evaluations Of Student Behaviors

PDF

The Effects Of Prior Part-Experiences On Visual Form Perception In The Albino Rat

PDF

Development And Analysis Of Some Tactual Measures Of Intelligence For Adolescent And Adult Blind

PDF

Differential Abilities In Normal And Retarded Children At Mental Age Six

PDF

Dissent And Agreement Regarding The High School Counselor'S Role

PDF

Delay Of Feedback And The Acquisition And Retention Of Verbal Material Inthe Classroom

PDF

The Relative Efficiency Of Prompting And Confirmation Learning Paradigms

PDF

An Investigation Of Two Language, Two Memory, And Two Perceptual Abilities In Retardates Of Mental Age Four

PDF

Testing Attitudes Toward Physical Handicap: Stereotyping And Objectivityin A Partially Integrated Elementary Program

PDF

Anxiety, Physiologically And Psychologically Measured, And Its Consequences On Mental Test Performance

PDF

Prescriptive Teaching As A Supplement To Behavior Modification In The Remediation Of Learning Disorders

PDF

A Problem-Centered Approach To Introductory Psychology

Asset Metadata

Creator Hoffman, John Erwin (author)

Core Title The effect of noise on intellectual performance as related to personality and social factors in upper division high school students

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Degree Conferral Date 1966

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

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Meyers, Charles Edward (committee chair), Jacobs, Alfred (committee member), Lefever, David Welty (committee member), McIntrye, Robert B. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-205525

Unique identifier UC11359972

Identifier 6608789.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-205525 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6608789

Dmrecord 205525

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hoffman, John Erwin

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