University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Relationship Of Personal Data Items To Vocational Rehabilitation

(USC Thesis Other)

The Relationship Of Personal Data Items To Vocational Rehabilitation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This d issertation has been 65-10, 104 m icrofilm ed exactly as received PALMER, Jean D eeds, 1918- THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONAL DATA ITEMS TO VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION. U niversity of Southern California, Ph. D ., 1965 Education, psychology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by JEAN DEEDS PALMER 1965 THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONAL DATA ITEMS TO VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION by Jean Deeds Palmer A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Educational Psychology) June 19^5 U N IV ERSITY O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA THE GRA DUATE SC H O O L U N IV ER SITY PARK LO S A N G ELES, C A L IFO R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by under the direction of h^^LDissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of ^ & £ > & £ * £ ........ Dean D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairman those of the The opinions expressed in this dissertation are of the author and do not necessarily represent those California State Department of Rehabilitation. PREFACE Come walk with me among our people* Listen to the voices of those who tell about their dreams. Listen to the sighs of those who wander silent through the streets but know not why. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE........................................... ii LIST OF TABLES..................................... vi Chapter I. THE PROBLEM............................... 1 Introduction The Problem Importance of the Study Scope of the Study Definitions Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................... lJ| Research Overview and Studies Prior to 1950 Research Prior to i960 Research Since i960 Summary III. THE PILOT STUDY........................... 38 Reliability of Factual Data The Pilot Study Explanation of Closure Status Symbols IV. DESCRIPTION AND METHOD OF THE MAJOR INVESTIGATION ............ I f 6 The Population and Sample Control of the Counselor Variable Internal Consistency Check The Items Hypotheses The Statistical Techniques iii Chapter Page V. COMPARISONS C? MEN AND WOMEN WITHIN EACH CLOSURE STATUS........................... 58 Comparison of Man Status "12” and Comparison of Men Status "13" Comparison of Men Status "15-TJ” Comparison of Men Status "15-E" Summary and Women Closed in "1 2* -A" and Women Closed in and Women Closed in and Women Closed in VI. COMPARISONS OP REHABILITATED WITH NON REHABILITATED CLIENTS................... 9^ Comparison of Status ”1 2" and Status "1 3" Clients Comparison of Status "12" and Status "15-TJ" Clients Comparison of Status "12" and Status "15-E" Clients VII. COMPARISONS AMONG NON-REHABILITATED CLIENTS li|5 Comparison of Status "13" and Status "15-XJ" Clients Comparison of Status ”13" and Status "15-E" Clients Comparison of Status "15“*U" and Status "15-E" Clients VIII. COMPARISONS OP ALL EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED CLIENTS AND COUNSELOR OPINIONS VERSUS EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ....................... l6 8 Comparison of Employed with Unemployed Clients Comparison of Empirical Findings with Counselor Rankings IX. VALIDATION OP THE FINDINGS .......... 195 Preparation of the Check Lists Testing the Check Lists Retesting the Check Lists It Chapter Page X* SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 210 Summary Conclusions Recommendations APPENDIX A. List of Items, Sub-Categories, and Croups......................... 236 APPENDIX B. Forms Used by the Vooatlonal Rehabili tation Service at Intake...... 21*3 APPENDIX C« List of Items and Sub-Categories Used in Final Research............... 2J 4.8 APPENDIX D, Additional Tables and Rank Orders . . . 2 £ l j . APPENDIX £• Counselor Ranking Forms.......... 332 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................... 33*> r LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1* Recorded Relationships of Personal Data Items to Vocational Rehabilitation ....... 3I 4. 2. Rank Order of Items Related to Vocational Rehabilitation .......... ........ 37 3. Distribution of Sample Drawn from 1962-63 Closed Files for Research................ 1+8 If. Percentage of Agreement and Disagreement between the Intake Counselors * Records and the Applicants* Records.................. 1+9 Factors Discriminating between Men and Women Closed in Status "12" or "12-A".......... £9 6. Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "12" 6l 7. Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "1 2" ................................... 62 8. Disabilities of Persons Closed in ”12" . . . 63 9. DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "1 2" ...................... 61+ 10. DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "12" 65 11. Factors Discriminating between Men and Women Closed in Status "13".................... 72 12. Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "13" 7l+ 13* Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "13" ................................... 75 li+. Disabilities of Persons Closed In "1 3" . . . 76 vi Table Page 15* DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed In "13"............ 77 16. DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "13" ................................... 78 17, Factors Discriminating between Men and Women Closed in Status "15-U"................... 82 18* Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "15-U" . . ................................ 85 19* Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed In "15-U".................................. 86 20* Disabilities of Persons Closed in "15-U" • • 87 21. DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persona Closed in "1 5-U"................................. 88 22. DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "15-U"................ 89 2 3. Factors Discriminating between Men and Women Closed in Status "15-E" . . . . . . . . . . 255 2k. Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "15-E".................................... 256 25. Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "15-E" 257 26. Disabilities of Persons Closed in "15-E" • . 258 27. DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "15-E".................. .............. 259 28. DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "15-E" ..... ......................... 260 2 9. Significant Factors Discriminating between Men and Women Within All Croups ...... 93 30. Factors Discriminating between Women Closed in Status "12" and *1 3" . . . . . . . . . . 96 31. Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "1 2" and "1 3" ................ 98 vii Table Page 32. Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed In "12" and "1 3* .................. 99 33- Disabilities of Persons Closed in "12" and " 1 3 " ..................................... 100 34* DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "1 2" and "1 3" • . .................... 101 35. DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "1 3" ............................ 102 3 6. Factors Discriminating between Men Closed in Status "12" and "13" .................. .. 104 37. Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "1 2" and "1 3" ............................ 106 38. Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "12" and "13* . . . . . . . . . . 107 39. Disabilities of Persons Closed in "12" and " 1 3 " ..................................... 108 40. DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "1 3" .... ................ 109 I 4.I. DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "1 2" and "1 3" .................. .. 110 1+ 2. Factors Discriminating between All Persons Closed in Status "12" and "1 3" .......... 113 43. Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "12" and "1 3" . • ............................. 115 44* Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "12" and "13" ..... ........ 116 1+5. Disabilities of Persons Closed in "12" and "13" ...................... ....... 117 46. DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "1 3” .... ................ 118 1+7. DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "1 3" ............................. 119 viii ago 122 123 261 125 126 127 128 130 131 262 263 261f 133 13l+ 265 266 Factors Discriminating between Women Closed In Status "12" and W15-U" ................. Sources of Referral of Persons Closed In "12" and "15-U"............................... Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-U"................. Disabilities of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-U"................................. .. DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-U"....................... DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed In "12" and "15-U"......................... . Factors Discriminating between Men Closed in Status "12” and "15-U"............ . . . Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-U"............................... Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-U" • . . . ........ Disabilities of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-U" .................................... DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-U" . . . . ............... DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-U" Factors Discriminating between All Persons Closed in Status "12" and "15-U" ........ Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-U" ........................... Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-U" ................. Disabilities of Persons Closed In "12" and "15-U"................................... ix Table Page 6 1l. DOT Code of Most Reeent Job of Persons Closed in "12” and "15-U"....................... 267 6 5. DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-U"............................ 268 66« Factors Discriminating between Women Closed in Status "12" and "15-E".............. , 269 6 7* Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E"................................ 270 6 8* Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E"................. 271 6 9* Disabilities of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E".................................... 272 70. DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E"....................... 273 71* DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E"...........* .............. 27U 72* Factors Discriminating between Men Closed in Status "12" and "15-E"................... 137 73* Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "12” and "15-E"................ - • 275 7i 4. . Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E"................ 139 75* Disabilities of Persons Closed ini "12" and "15-E" * » . .............................. 276 76. DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E" . . „ . ............... 277 77* DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E"................ 278 78. Factors Discriminating between All Persons Closed in Status "12" and "1 5- E " .......... l l j . 1 79* Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E".......... 279 x Table Page 80• Sources of Financial Support of Persona Closed in ”12" and "15-E".............. l i j . 2 81. Disabilities of Persons Closed in "12" and "1 5- E " ................................ Uj.3 82* DOT Code of Most Reoent Job of Persons Closed in "12” and "15-E" . . . .............. 280 8 3. DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E".............. 28l 8l j . . Factors Discriminating between Women Closed in Status "13" and "15-U".........• • . • llj .6 85* Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "1 3" and "1$ - U " ........................... 282 8 6. Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "13” and "15-U"............ .. . 283 8 7. Disabilities of Persons Closed in ”13" and "15-U".................................... 2 8 1 * . 8 8. DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U"................ 285 8 9. DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U" . ....................... 286 90. Factors Discriminating between Men Closed in Status "1 3" and "15-U" . . . . . . . . . . 1J 4.8 91. Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "1 3" and "15-U" 287 92. Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U" .......... 288 93. Disabilities of Persons Closed in "1 3" and "15-U"................ 289 9J 4.. DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "1 3” and "15-U"....................... 290 95. DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U" . ....................... 291 xi Table Page 9 6. Factors Discriminating between All Persons Closed in Status "1 3" and "15- U " ........ 150 97- Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in ”13” and "15-U"............................... 292 9 8, Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed In "1 3" and "15-U"................. 293 99. Disabilities of Persons Closed in "1 3” and "15-U".......... 29l j . 100. DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U"....................... 295 101* DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U"........................... 296 102* Factors Discriminating between Women Closed in Status "13" and *15-E"................. 297 103* Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "1 3" and "15-E"......................... . . . . 298 IOI4.. Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-E"........ .. . . . 299 105* Disabilities of Persons Closed in "1 3" and "15-E".................................... 300 106• DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-E".................. . • 301 107® DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-E"........ . ................ 302 108. Factors Discriminating between Men Closed in Status "13" and "15-E"............ 15^. 109* Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "1 3" and "15-E" ...... 155 110. Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-E"....................... 303 111. Disabilities of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-E".................................... 30I 4. xii Table Page 112* DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-E"....................... 305 113* DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "13” and "15-E"........................... 306 lll|. Factors Discriminating between All Persons Closed in Status "13" and "15-E"........ 156 115* Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-E"........................... 158 116, Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-E"................. 159 117. Disabilities of Persons Closed in "1 3" and "15-E"................................... 307 118* DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-E"....................... 308 119* DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "13" and "15-E" . .................... . . 309 120, Factors Discriminating between Women Closed in Status "15-U" and "15-E"............... 310 121, Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "15-U" and "15-E"......................... 311 122, Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "15-U" and 15-E"............... 312 123* Disabilities of Persons Closed in "1 5-U" and "15-E"................................... 313 12l 4.* DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "15-U" and "15- E " ..................... 3ll* 125* DOT Code of Longest Job of Persona Closed in "15-U" and "15-E" . • . ............ ♦ . 315 126. Factors Discriminating between Men Closed in Status "15-U" and "15-E" l6l 127* Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "15-U" and "15-E"......................... 163 xili Table 126* 129. 1 3 0. 131. 1 3 2. 133- 13^. 135. 1 3 6. 137. 1 3 8. 139. ll*0. 11* 1. ll* 2. Page Sources of Flnanoial Support of Persons Closed In "15-U" and "15-E"................ 3*6 Disabilities of Persons Closed in "15-U" and "15-E"......................... 317 DOT Code of Most Reoent Job of Persons Closed in "15-U" and "15-E"..................... 318 DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "15-U" and "15-E"......................... 319 Factors Discriminating between All Persons Closed in Status "15-E" and "15-U" • . . • l61* Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "15-U" and "15-E"......................... 165 Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "15-U" and "15-E"................ l66 Disabilities of Persons Closed in "15-U" and "15-E".......... 320 DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "15-U" and "15-E"..................... 321 DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "15-U" and "15-E".......................... 322 Factors Discriminating between Women Closed in Status "12" and "15-E" as Compared to Status "13" and "15-U"................... 169 Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E" and Persons Closed in "1 3" and "15-U".................................... 171 Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E" and Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U* . 172 Disabilities of Persons Closed in ”12” and "15-E" and Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U" . . . * ..................... . . . 323 DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "1 5-E" and Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U*............................ 321* xiv Table Page 1I 4. 3* DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed In "12" and "15-E" and Persons Closed In "13" and "1£-TJ"................................ 3 2$ l l f i j . * Factors Discriminating between Men Closed in Status "12" and "15-E" as Compared to Status "13" and "15-U".................... I7I 4. 1 Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E" and Persons Closed in "13" and "15-tJ".................................... 175 II 4. 6. Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E" and Persons Closed in "1 3" and "15-U".............. 176 ll^7 • Disabilities of Persons Closed in "12” and "15-E" and Persons Closed in "1 3" and "15-U" ..... 326 l l j . 8. DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in ”12" and "1 5-E" and Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U*........................... 327 llj.9* DOT Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E" and Persons Closed in "1 3" and "15-U"................................ 328 150. Factors Discriminating between All Persons Closed in Status "12" and "15-E" as Compared to Status "1 3" and "15-U" .... 178 151* Sources of Referral of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E" and Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U".................................... 179 152. Sources of Financial Support of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E" and Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U".............. . 180 153* Disabilities of Persona Closed in "12" and "15-E" and Persons Closed In "13" and "15-U".................................... 329 151|- DOT Code of Most Recent Job of Persons Closed in "12" and "15-E" and Persons Closed in "13" and "15-U"........................... 330 XT Table Page 155* D0T Code of Longest Job of Persons Closed In ”12" and "l£-E" and Persons Closed in "13" and "1 5- U " ................................ 331 156. Chi Square Tests Comparing Numbers of Persons Who Had Never Worked or Had Insignificant Work Histories Within Different Closure Groups ......................... 181 157* Factors Distinguishing Rehabilitated from Non-Rehabilitated Women . •••»••••• I83 158. Factors Distinguishing Rehabilitated from Non-Rehabilitated Men.......... I8lf 159* Factors Discriminating at a Significant Level between Rehabilitated and Non-Rehabilitated Groups ................. 185 160. Frequencies of Items Which Showed Significant Differences between All Men and Women in the Sample . ........................... 186 161. Frequencies of Items Which Showed Significant Differences between Women in Each of the Seven Inter-Group Comparisons •«•••« » 187 l62* Frequencies of Items Which Showed Significant Differences Between Men in Bach of the Seven Inter-Group Comparisons ...••«• 188 1 6 3. Frequencies of Items Which Showed Significant Differences between Groups in Each of the Seven Inter-Group Comparisons •••«••» 189 1614.* Frequencies of Items Which Showed Significant Differences in All Twenty-One Comparisons • 190 l65* "True" Ranks as Established by Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance ............. • 192 1 6 6• Coefficients of Concordance and P Levels for Counselor Rankings of Personal Data Items and Groups •••••••••«•••••• 193 1 6 7* Results of Chi Square Tests Made Comparing Check List Predictions with Actual Results 201 xvi Table Page l6 8« Comparison of Prediction of Rehabilitation and Non-Rehabilitation by Check List and by Present Methods (All Closures) 1 9 6 2- 1961* 203 1 6 9* Prediction of Rehabilitations Comparing Cheek Lists to Present Methods (1962-I96IO 2 0 i j . 170, Comparison of "1 3" Closures Accepted by Present Methods and by Check Lists ( 1962- 19610..................................... 205 171* Comparison of "15-U”Closures Accepted by Present Methods and by Check Lists ( 1962- I96I*)................................ 206 172* Comparison of "15-E" Closures Accepted bj Present Methods and by Check Lists (1962- 19610..................................... 207 173* Comparison (by Closure Status) of Mon 21 Years of Age or Older with Check List Scores Above and Below 5 (I963-I96IO • * • 208 xvii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The Sotting In California* the State Department of Rehabilita tion includes the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation as one of its major units* The free services provided by this public agency are designed to help those with a voca tional handicap (which may be physical* mental* or emotional-social) enter or re-enter the labor market. When an Individual applies for such help* he is Interviewed by an Intake Counselor. The Intake Counselor must deter mine whether the applicant is: (1) legally eligible* and (2) grossly feasible* In other words* in order to meet the legal requirements the applicant must be at least l6 , must be a resident of California* and must have a medically dlagnosable physical* mental* or ©motional-social condition which constitutes a substantial handicap to employment. If these requirements are met* the Intake Counselor must then decide whether available services would probably enable the individual to go to work* These questions are asked: Could the services help this applicant to become self-supporting in an occupation compatible with his physical and/or mental or emotional limitations? Could these limitations be removed or perhaps substantially reduced? If the Intake Counselor determines that the applicant is both eligible and grossly feasible, the applicant is accepted for further consideration and he is transferred to a Field Counselor who will try to work with him in developing an Individualised rehabilitation plan* Civil service requirements for Journeyman rehabil itation counselors include: (1) education equivalent to graduation from college, and (2) two years of full time paid experience as a counselor in such areas as education or employment with primary responsibility for the evalua tion and adjustment of the problems of adults. In the past, Intake Counselors have usually first served as Field Counselors (those who carry case loads and work directly with the clients in developing and completing plans for vocational rehabilitation. The ratio of Intake Counselors to Field Counselors has been approximately on© to five. In addition to the Intake Counselors and the Field Counselors, most districts now have a Vocational Psychol ogist, This member of the staff must have the equivalent of a master's degree and two years' experience in adminis tering, scoring, and interpreting vocational and 3 psychological tests. (Counselors and psychologists must also, of oourse, pass both written and oral Civil Service examinations). Since at present there is only one psyohologist to approximately seventeen counselors it is not possible to do any kind of routine testing during the screening process. The screening process The Intake Counselor makes his decision concerning eligibility and gross feasibility by evaluating informa tion gathered from: (1) medical data; (2) personal data and application blank; (3) employment record; ( I j . ) personal interview ( 3 0 -6 0 minutes); ( 5>) past experiences, knowledge, education, et cetera; and ( 6 ) priority ratings. In 1952 the emphasis of the Vocational Rehabilita tion program was changed from serving large numbers of minimally handicapped persons to serving those in greatest need of rehabilitation. Basically, the priorities demand that the agency work with the more severely disabled, the more chronically disabled, and the more difficult such as persons with dependents or persons receiving public relief. If the applicant is accepted as a client, It is the "eduoated guess” of the Intake Counselor that gross feasibility exists, and that there is a reasonably good chance that the client can, with the help of a Field Counselor, develop a rehabilitation plan that will lead to successful employment. Because of the large number of applicants* the small number of Intake Counselors and Vocational Psychol ogists* and the paucity of time* it is usually impossible to administer tests or to see the applicant more than once before deoiding whether to accept him as a client. Inevi tably* personal biases and extraneous factors such as lack of Important information enter into this method of screening. In consequence* many Individuals are aooepted for service for whom a plan is not* or cannot be developed. In other instances the plan is developed and initiated but not oompleted. There is also evidence that some persons who are rejected by the Intake Counselor or by the Field Counselor* do eventually become employed. It follows* therefore* that not everyone who is rejected is of necessity non- feasible. Because the factors which appear to be related to "success” or "failure” in vocational rehabilitation are numerous* any Information which would aid in making the predictions more reliable would be of great value. The Problem The basic purpose of this study was to determine whether or not factual* personal data gathered at Intake* could be shown to provide warning signals or positive indicators which were significantly related to either "success" or "failure" In terms of vocational rehabilita tion* In addition to individual items which might prove to be useful in terms of these criteria, it was hoped that personal data patterns might also be discovered which would be of help to both the Intake Counselor in making his decision and to the Field Counselor in working with the client* This study was concerned with differences which might be found between persons who are or are not rehabil itated under the auspices of the California State Depart ment of Rehabilitation--specifically, those who are served by the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Importance of the Study Relationship to the mechanics of processing applicants The number of applicants in California in the fiscal year of 1 9 6 2 -6 3 reached 30,000. Approximately four out of five of these applicants were rejected. Of those accepted, only one out of three or four was rehabilitated* Any increase in the efficiency and accuracy of screening applicants would result in several kinds of savings: 1* Time a) Of the applicant himself who now spends several hours in completing forms, in being Interviewed, keeping medical appointments, and waiting for a decision. (The average is now two to three months from the date of referral to the date of aeoeptance)• b) Of the Intake Counselor used In reviewing records. Interviewing the applicant, con tacting appropriate personnel (such as former employers, or the Medical Consult ant), and preparing the Intake and Eligibility summaries. c) Of the clerical staff in scheduling, changing, and cancelling appointments, and in typing records, transferring and assigning cases, accounting, filing, and bookkeeping* d) Of the medical staff in examining appli cants and preparing reports, and of their clerical help in transcribing resumes* Money Each of the above mentioned activities could be translated into financial expenditures which, multiplied by the number of applicants, can be seen to amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars* Those funds expended on clients who do not, for many reasons, complete voca tional plans which have been initiated, are even larger* 3* Backlog The number of applicants waiting to be served can be counted in the thousands* Sometimes they become discouraged* hostile, or disinter ested, or their medical problems may become exacerbated through lack of proper or prompt treatment* For the counseling and clerical staffs this backlog represents work under severe pressure and the necessity for "cutting corners” with the likelihood of a reduction in quality in order to keep up with the pressures for quantity* Since the number of applicants will continue to increase, the problems ooncoranitant with processing them can be expected to multiply* Relationship to employment trends Directly related to the forecast of an ever- increasing number of applicants, are the forecasts of employment trends* In the Spring of 1963 the United States Department of Labor issued a newspaper report which Indicated that by 1970 most of this nation*s work would be accomplished by persons between the ages of 25 and l j . 5 * Applicants to the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation above and below these age limits can therefore be expected to increase within the next decade* Relationship to automation The influence of automation in eliminating at an accelerating rate the number of jobs at the semi-skilled and unskilled levels is well known to the American public. For example, a September 19^ radio broadcast by the Ducommon Business Journal noted that a recent survey of eleven large companies showed that 5 0 -6 0 per cent of their semi-skilled and unskilled jobs had already been termi nated. In many public pronouncements, Seymour Wolfbein, Director of the Office of Manpower Automation and Training of the United States Department of Labor, has pointed out that the United States Department of Labor indicates that the gross national produot increased 9° Por cent in the past ten years while the manpower needed to accomplish this increased only 10 per cent. Therefore, the vocation ally disabled who held jobs in the skilled, clerical, and managerial classifications may also be expected to increase among future Vocational Rehabilitation applicants. Many individuals with physical and/or mental or emotional- social handicaps who have heretofore been able to funotion unaided in the labor market may be forced to seek help in order to cop® with these changing conditions. Relationship to progress In medical science Two other factors can be predicted to have a significant influence on the growing number of individuals to be served. As medleal science continues to perfeot its skills in saving and prolonging life, the proportion of disabled and aging persons who must find meaningful ways of continuing to live is rapidly increasing. In a recent discussion at the I96I 4. Pacifio Regional Rehabilitation Conference, Dr. Verne Inman, Director of the Biomechanics Laboratory of the University of California Medical School at San Francisco, made this comment: "We are replacing mortality with morbidity, and we must seek ways to avoid what could become as great a tragedy as death." Already, more and more persons who, though crippled or somehow disabled are now kept alive by medical techniques, are being referred for rehabilitation services. Relationship to federally sponsored social proJeeis Finally, the late President Kennedy's Interest and support of rehabilitation activities and President Johnson's concern with poverty and the culturally deprived segments of our population are already being reflected in the mounting expenditures and legislation developing around rehabilitation programs. It is inevitable that the responsibilities of all rehabilitation personnel will Increase as these changes are put into effect. The problems connected with working out a practical vocational rehabilitation plan with 10 parsons of marginal employability will become more complex and difficult. It is, therefore, mandatory that informa tion regarding the factors which might be expected to influence either positively or negatively the vocational rehabilitation process be augmented as quickly as possible. Scope of the Study This investigation is limited to the information contained in the closed files of 1 9 6 2 -6 3 for the Long Beach area in the Long Beach District Office of California. It was anticipated, however, that the nature of the find ings would indicate future directions for use, possibly on a state-wide basis. Definitions For the purposes of this study the following definitions are employed: Rehabilitated client.— A person accepted for services by the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation who completed a specific vocational plan and was then gainfully employed for a period of not less than three months before the file was closed. Non-rehabllitated client.--A person accepted for services by the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation who either had not undertaken or had not completed a specific vocational plan before the file was closed. 11 Faotual or personal data.--Information provided by a elient about himself which can be verified from public records. Organisation of the Remainder of ihe tilasertatlon Chapter II will present a review of the literature which was found to be related to this study. The compara tive recency of rehabilitation research will also be noted. Tables 1 and 2 will summarize this review. Chapter III will describe the preliminary investi gations which were a necessary part of the total project. These include the determination of the reliability of faotual data and the pilot study. An explanation of the closure status symbols is also given. Chapter IV will outline the methods and statistical treatment used In the main body of the researoh. The sampling procedure, the control of the counselor variable, and an internal consistency check are included. The items chosen will be discussed and the hypotheses stated. Chapter V will report on the comparisons made between the men and the women within each closure status. "Modal” characteristics are noted for each sex within eaoh closure status. Table 29 will summarize these findings. Chapter VI will present the comparisons made (by 12 sox and total group) of the rehabilitated vith the non rehabilitated. olients. Chapter VII will report on the comparisons made (by sex and total group) among the non-rehabilltated clients* Chapter VIII will present the final comparisons of the employed olients with the unemployed clients* A rough estimate of the agreement between counselor rankings of the importance of items and groups of items, and the obtained importance of items and groups of items (as they relate to rehabilitation) concludes this chapter* The "check list" technique used to validate the empirical findings is described in Chapter IX as well as the retesting done on a sample drawn from a new population* Chapter X will summarize this research, present the conclusions derived from the findings, and offer recommendations for further investigation* The Bibliog raphy follows this final chapter* Appendix A lists the items used in the research* Appendix B shows samples of the agency forms from which these items were derived* Appendix C presents the items with the final sub-categories* Appendix D consists of those tables of Chi squares and rank orderings which did not appear to demonstrate significant differences between the groups being compared or for which the frequencies were too email to allow comparisons. Appendix E contains samples of the forms used by the counselors In ranking Items. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE This chapter Is organized as follows: (1) an overview of the research and description of the pauoity of studies prior to 19l* 2; ( 2) research from 1953 to i9 6 0; ( 3 ) investigations dating from i960 to the present; and (if.) a summary of the review of the literature. The studies are subdivided according to whether they were primarily follow-up investigations, surveys, or were concerned with the development of some type of predictive instrument. In some instances the studies overlapped these subdivisions. Research Overview and Studies ----------R I o r i o T r e g ---------- Prior to 191*2, the category of Rehabilitation is not even Included in the Psychological Abstracts. From 19l }.2 to 1950 there were no studies listed which were pertinent to this investigation. Indeed, the first related work occurred in 1953* Following 19i*2, references to investigations in this area gradually increase, but in terms of the needs of the expanding numbers of vocationally H* 15 handicapped persons, the research has only begun* Within the last five years there has been an increasing emphasis on the study of those factors which are significantly related to "success” or "failure" in vocational rehabili tation programs, although the studies of the importance of personal data are limited. The serious nature of the problems surrounding rehabilitation needs may be Inferred from the fact that a large part of the research which has been accomplished has been sponsored by the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Ma.1or contributions The Industrial Relations Center at the University of Minnesota and the Jewish Vocational Services (which have concentrated their research in the sheltered workshop environment) have been major contributors to our fund of knowledge concerning the vocational rehabilitation process. The Industrial Relations Center appears also to have sponsored many projects indirectly (as in the case of graduate students who presented doctoral dissertations in this field). Research Prior to 1Q6o Follow-up research Among the first pertinent reports available is 16 that published in 1953 by Lesser and Darling (54) of the New York Institute for the Crippled and Disabled. In a follow-up study made of some 531 former patients of their Institute these investigators collected data on the social, vocational, marital, and physioal status of their subjects, and explored the relationships of sex, education, and intelligence to employment. Although they found no sex differences between those who were gainfully employed and those who were not, they did note that those who had less than a high school education also appeared to have a less than average chance to be rehabilitated. In addition, they reported that those who were disabled at birth were the least likely to become employed, and that those who were disabled before the age of 30 but after birth were the most likely to become employed. They also concluded that the length of time since disablement in terms of experience "out in the world" was an important aid in compensating for the disability, so that the individual could achieve economic Independence. Survey research In 1958 a report of a three year study conducted through Adelphi College (16) of the differences and similarities between employed and unemployed handicapped persons, showed minimal differences between these two groups as to age, sex, marital status, education, age at 17 onset* and job skills prior to tho handicap* There were, however* more married males among the employed than among the unemployed* Among the employed* also* there appeared to be a larger number of persons who had sustained their handicaps for more than ten years* In addition* the number of Individuals who had had office or clerical skills before the onset of the disability* was larger among the employed group* In Kansas City, Missouri* in the fall of 195>d> « ■ report was Issued of a rehabilitation experiment done there on the psychological aspects of rehabilitation* Although this experiment was primarily concerned with the Influence of psychological faotors resulting from disabil ity as they pertained to rehabilitation* some of the findings are of interest to this research* For example* this report noted that Insofar as visibility of disability was concerned, visible disability was associated with a higher incidence and a greater degree of severity of psycholog ical Interference of rehabilitation only among the male adults* Among the female adults* there was some evidence that the reverse might be true. Non-visible disabilities in men and visible disabilities in women* then* might be considered as positive signs for rehabilitation success* (3 2 2 7 7) These investigators also suggested: Welfare assistance* in itself* is not such an interfering factor in rehabilitation* as has been supposed by many workers in the field* Bather* the possibility was pointed up that the basic issue might well be in terms of the kinds of people who tend to become welfare recipients* ( 3 2 2 7 8) 18 They also reported that married men appeared to be better risks than single men, that the eardlac patients had a higher Inoidenoe of psychological Interference than the non-cardiac patients, and that In general, the blind and obese patients appeared to be the best rehabilitation prospects* They noted, however, that the blind patients had had prior contact with the State Bureau for the Blind, and for this reason may have received benefits prior to their admission to this study. In 1959 a flurry of activity occurred in rehabili tation research, spurred by federal grants. The Senior Citizens, Incorporated of Hashville, Tennessee, completed a study appraising the differences between vocationally well-adjusted, rehabilitated, and non-rehabilitable older men (9 8)• The results of this study pointed out that the similarities among the groups were more impressive than the differences, and while the difference in age at onset of the disability discriminated between the rehabilitated and the non-rehabilitable individuals, it was felt that this reflected to some extent the agency policy in select ing among the applicants. By mid-year of 1959# the Industrial Relations Center had put out two relevant bulletins. One of these entitled Factors Related to Employment Success (2I 4. ) reported on interview data taken from a state-wide sample of physically handicapped persona of labor force age. In this group orthopedic disabilities were most common. Over half of the physical handicaps were caused by illness* with only 13 per cent resulting from employment accidents. Sex was considered a major determinant of employment status* for while two-thirds of the men in the sample were employed* only one-third of the women were so categorised. Age at onset of the disability was also significantly related to employment status* since those who were disabled before the age of 30 appeared to be the least handicapped in finding work while those disabled after age were most handicapped in terms of maintaining employ ment. A third factor related to employment status was the nature of the disability* with those persons who had respiratory and orthopedic handicaps having the highest employment rates. The lowest employment rates were found among those with neurological and neuropsychiatric handi caps. Years of education were also Important* for employ ment rates were greater among those with more education. Beyond the age of however* this factor seemed to have little effect on employment status. The number of dependents and marital status (which were interpreted as sources of economic pressure) also seemed to be signifi cant. Although only half of those with one or two 20 dependents were working, more than 80 per cent of persons with three or more dependents were employed* Similarly, only 50 per eent of single Individuals were working, compared to two-thirds of married persons. Factors whioh were found to be unrelated to employ ment status in this sample wares age, origin of disabil ity, and length of time between onset of the disability and the individual *s ability to return to work, as well as present occupation or occupation before disablement* In the fall of 1959 & group of individuals employed in an Oklahoma Goodwill Industries facility which served as a sheltered training workshop for physically handicapped persons, was compared with a group of gainfully employed handicapped individuals who were working at a nearby Air Force base* These two groups proved to be similar in age, but the educational level of the Air Force workers was higher, their unemployment rate was lower, more than twice as many of them were married, they were supporting twice as many dependents, and their vocational histories showed higher skill levels than those of the persons in the sheltered workshop* In addition, two-thirds of the Air Force employees had been disabled a© young adults, while very few of them had been handicapped after the age of l j . 0* In contrast, one-fifth of the subject© in the workshop had been handicapped as young adults, with I 4.O per 21 cent of them disabled after the age of l f . 0 * The investiga tors felt that "finding new employment with the onset of disability in later life posed severe vocational problems for the OGI group (sheltered workshop) who were limited educationally and lacked vocational skills" ( 9 1 2 3 2 7)* At about the same time another bulletin was issued by the Industrial Relations Center whieh reported a study made of the employment servioe applicants in Minneapolis and Saint Paul (25)• This investigation indicated that the employment servioe handicapped applicants differed from vocational rehabilitation clients in age, occupation, and kinds of disabilities* The employment service appli cants were older, were mostly blue oollar workers, and had less severe vocational handicaps compared to the rehabili tation clients* Predictive instrument research Late in 1959* a progress report made by the Los Angeles Orthopedic Foundation on a project for the develop ment of a vocational rehabilitation potential rating scale based on personality variables noted the inter-relationship of ethnic status to sex (95) * Among the white individuals in the group 72 per cent were male, and among the Negroes, only J+2 per cent* There also appeared to b© a wide discrepancy in terms of ag© between the white and the Negro olients, although this difference had not yet been 22 tasted for significance. The average age among the white clients was almost i j .2 years compared to an average age among the Negro clients of only 33 years. The marital status of the men and women, as well as the Negroes and the white clients, also seemed to be quite different, for there were more married males than females In the samples, and more of the white olients were married than of the Negroes. Among the females there were more who were separated or divorced. There were also more Negroes who were thus categorised. Research Since I960 Follow-up research By i9 6 0, rehabilitation research projects had noticeably Increased in number. Early in this year, a follow-up study made of patients who had been discharged from the Community Rehabilitation Center in Connecticut showed that factors such as age, disease, and disability were related to the ability to maintain gain© mad® after discharge (31). It was also felt that responsibility for others (in terms of marital statu® and number of dependents) was important, and appeared to have a positive influence on the ability of the person to maintain himself. By 1962 Newstrom had completed a dissertation concerned with a follow-up of rehabilitated veterans who had had emotional or physical disabilities (110)« This study revealed no differences in their post-training job histories* Since all of these olients had been graduates of college, he concluded that the outcomes of vocational rehabilitation at the professional level of education were no different for the emotionally disturbed clients than for those physically disabled* In this year also, Echols made a follow-up questionnaire study of the work adjustment of discharged tuberculosis patients* He reported that age, sex, and race had a significant influence on adjustment, both alone and in combination with each other (1 0 6)* Survey research The Graduate School of Social Work at the Univer sity of Utah issued the final report in i960 of a comprehensive study made by the States of Utah, Montana and Wyoming of cases closed in their offices of Vocational Rehabilitation during 19^9 to 19f& (19)® Interviews held with these clients indicated that those who had been disabled before the age of l j .0 had a much greater chance of achieving vocational success than those who had become disabled after this age* Similarly, those applicants who had more education also had a better chance to be rehabil itated* Among the categories of disability, those clients who had psychiatric handicaps responded less well to rehabilitation services than the others. Contrary to some of the previous findings, the results of this study Indi cated that sex appeared to be insignificantly related to successful vocational rehabilitation. Finally, the most important factor related to rehabilitation appeared to be the disability of the client. Ninety-two per cent of those with non-progressive disabilities were in the successful group as compared to only 21 per cent of those who had progressive disabilities. In addition to the final general report of the aforementioned Tri-State study done in Utah, Wyoming and Montana, McFhee and Magleby reviewed in detail the data from the state of Montana (57)* The clients in their sample had been grouped according to whether they had been substantially employed, unsubstantially employed, or minimally employed. Among these groups, it was found that over one-fourth of the substantially employed olients had married during the four to nine years since their rehabil itation services had been completed. This was in sharp contrast to the 1 per cent of those who had been unsub stantially employed and had married, and to the minimally employed group which showed a 10 per cent decrease in marriage status. In the first group there had been a 1 per cent increase in divorce, as opposed to 6 per cent 25 and 8 per cent increases In groups 2 and 3. These investigators also found that over 20 per cent of the clients in the first group had been supported by wages at the time of their application for rehabilitation, while only 15 per cent of those in the second group were so rated, and 10 per cent of those in the third group. Motto studied four small groups of disabled veterans (6o)» He was interested in the stability of the work experience of the veteran (prior to entering voca tional training) as a predictor of success in this train ing. Motto found that those veterans who had entered training with a stable work history— in other words had been employed practically full time until shortly before this period, or those who had had no work history were usually seen by their instructors as being readily plaoeable in the labor market. In an effort to see if actual employment followed this same pattern, he also conducted a follow-up study which appeared to support these same trends. In 1961 Rusalem reported on his review of rehabil itation efforts which had been made with a group of disabled clients, age 6 0 or more (72). Most of these had cardiovascular problems. The median educational level was only seventh grade. It was found that at least half of the olients were able to obtain stable employment. 26 However, this was defined as lasting from one to six months, and only one-fourth of the group which he surveyed were able to find work whloh extended beyond this period of time* Moreover, the nature of the jobs that they were able to obtain was quite limited, and, for most of them, quite short termed. Using a different approach, Muthard and Jaques investigated counselors1 opinions of the barriers to effeotive rehabilitation (62), Their sampling was made on a nation-wide basis, and inoluded counselors from State Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, as well as rehabilita tion counselors in other settings. They noted that trained counselors listed deficiencies of the client as barriers to rehabilitation more often than untrained counselors. The difference was significant at the 1 per cent level of confidence. Among the client deficiencies considered was lack of education. In California, a special report of eases closed in the fiscal year 1 9 6 0 -6 1 was issued by the Vocational Rehabilitation Serviee toward the end of 1961 (67), It indicated: There is a definite positive correlation between educational level obtained and successful rehabilita tion of the individual client0 Thus, less than * > per cent of the rehabilitated olients, but over 6 per cent of those not rehabilitated, had completed less than six years of schooling. (o?*15>) Finally, in 1 9 6 3, DeHann studied closed cases in the files of the Vocational Rehabilitation Agency of Minnesota (37)• He found significant differences between rehabllitants and non-rehabilltants in terms of these biographical data: ( 1) more non-rehabilltants reported public or private relief as the primary souroe of income, (2) more non-rehabllitants were deaf, ( 3) more rehabili- tants had pulmonary tuberculosis, ( I j . ) more rehabllitants were referred by educational facilities, ( 5) the rehabili- tants were younger, ( 6) there was a larger proportion of high school graduates among rehabllitants, and ( 7) a larger proportion of rehabllitants was less than 30 at the time of onset of disability* Predictive instrument research Haberfs doctoral dissertation of April, i960 was concerned with the usefulness of different kinds of variables in the prediction of potential to complete successfully a vocational rehabilitation evaluation ( 1 0 8). In addition to certain tests, he used such personal data as age, sex, years of education, and duration of disabil ity. He found that age, sex, and years of disability were not significantly related to any of his criteria (which Included the rating of individuals as having the potential to enter the labor force). On the other hand, he did find that years of education were significantly related to his criteria at the .0 5 level or higher. 28 In the fall of 19609 the Jewish Vocational Service in Chicago issued a fourth progress report of their research project in which they were attempting to develop a scale of employability for handicapped persons ( 3 0)• They felt: There might be two quite distinct sets of personal charaeteristies which together contribute to the vocational adjustment* It was hypothesized that these were: ( 1) those characteristics that permit a person to be hired (goodness of fit between the employer's perception of the client at the point of initial contact and the employer's conceptions of a potentially adequate worker), and (2) those characteristics that permit the client to maintain employment, once it is achieved* ( 30:18) This group designated the first set of characteristics as plaoeabllity, the second as maintenance* They found that those olients who were judged highly employable might still fall If their families interferred with their efforts* On th© other hand, even those olients who had been judged unemployable were found to obtain jobs if their families had been supporting of their efforts* In addition, It was reported that most of the clients were placed in unskilled jobs in which pay was close to the legal minimum* These Included clerical, service, messen ger, and stock jobs* Moreover, most of th© placements had been mad© In "the most vulnerable positions in the weaker firms” ( 3 0: 6 )* Although these findings are not of direct 29 concern to the research at hand, they are of related interest* At the end of this year, a report of the proceed ings of the 1 3th Annual Workshop on Guidance Training and Placement included a review of the Rehabilitation Potential Scale which had been developed by Hovis, Marra, and Zadrozny (61}.). The proceedings also gave a detailed report of a six state comparative study made of the different methods used in the screening of OASI referrals (101)* Novis, et al*, had used four factors which had been determined as those commonly considered by counselors when judging rehabilitation potential* These factors were: (1) medical data, (2) age, (3) occupation, and ( I 4 . ) educa tion* On the basis of counselor opinion, the medical data was assigned 5>0 per cent of the total weight, age one-third of the total weight, and occupation and education were considered equal but third and fourth in importance* By the use of a simple formula, all possible ratings were calculated and placed in an ordered series on a circular slide rule* The ratings mad© by three counselors of 100 cases were then compared* The mean and median scores of these ratings were practically identical* The investiga tors felt that it would appear to be possible To isolate and quantify basic case data factors which contribute to rehabilitation potential* The use of quantitative techniques provides several advantages which are inherent in the nature of measurement* 30 Personal biases and extraneous factors are eliminated from the evaluation process* Instead, there Is assur ance that only certain significant designated data are considered in every decision* The result, therefore, is objectivity of decisions, and consistency and uniformity of judgments. (1 0 1 2?) In summarizing the screening methods used among the six states, it was obvious that there was considerable variation In their deolsions to accept or refuse appli cants* "The quantitative technique, however, produced correlation values which Indicated a high degree of con sistency and reliability In ratings between adjudicators within a state, as well as between adjudicators in different states" (1 0 1 2 2 3). In an effort to get at the criteria which were being used by the counselors Involved in the various states, questionnaires were sent to them. Their responses indicated that they considered these factors to be most essential in this order: age, training, effect of disability, vocation, motivation, geographical location of the client, work history, occupation, mobility, and attitude toward impairment. Hovia, at al. felt that their technique could point out three groups of persons: those with high rehabilitation potential, those with low rehabilitation potential, end those who fell in the borderline group for whom further study should b© considered. In 1961 the Report of Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Workshop on Guidance Training and Placement included 31 another follow-up study of the rehabilitation potential rating aoale ( 1 0 2). It will be recalled that thia scale made use of the four factors of age, occupational level, education, and medical data. At the time of this report only 13 cases had been closed by the Vocational Rehabilitation Service following acceptance. Of these 1 3, only 5 had been closed as successful rehabilitations. Of these £, 3 had been judged as having good rehabilitation potential by both the rating scale and the counselors1 judgment. One had been closed successfully which had been considered by counselors as having good rehabilitation potential, but not by the rating scale, and another one had been closed successfully which had been considered as having good rehabilitation potential by the rating scale, but not by the counselor. It was pointed out, of course, that these numbers were much too small to give any real evaluation of the method as yet. This same year Soott and Stein attempted to develop an index of ease and difficulty of rehabilitation ( 7^)* They concerned themselves with the length of the rehabili tation period (the time from acceptance to successful closure), the wages which the client earned and the amount of self-help which he had needed in finding a job— In other words, whether the client had been able to obtain his 32 own position. Their procedures assumed that the longer the time which the client needed to achieve his rehabili tation* the more help he had needed in obtaining work, and the lower his earnings, were all indications that such a person was more difficult to rehabilitate. They concluded that persons with three types of disabilities were compara tively easy to helps those with amputation of an upper extremity, those with an amputation of a lower extremity, and those who had deformities or injuries to the back. They felt that the persons most difficult to rehabilitate were the epileptic and the mentally retarded. They also felt that other factors were related to single variables being studied, that Is, that the length of rehabilitation was also a function of the personTs age at acceptance, of his employment history* of the number of his dependents, and of the rehabilitation lag (time from the onset of the disability to the time of acceptance in rehabilitation). At approximately the same time, Ehrle reported on his attempt (using the technique of discriminate analysis) to objectively predict success or failure in vocational rehabilitation from biographical data contained in closed files In the Missouri state agency (107)« He concluded that "the existing failure rate without the use of the instrument would have to b© between 25 and 28 per cent to prove it to be more effective than the selection procedures now used in Missouri" (107*95)• 33 Summary It seems clear from the preceding review that personal data have been found to bear an important rela tionship to both "success” and "failure" in vocational rehabilitation® It is also clear that this relationship varies from study to study according to such factors as the criteria of "success" or "failure," the statistical treatment, the population (and hence the screening proce dures), the geographical location, the particular items Included, and the perspectives of the investigators* As Ehrle comments: In predicting rehabilitation potential, results have been contradictory* A possible explanation for this is the fact that populations investigated differed, numbers and types of personal data items used mere diverse, experimental techniques varied, Investigators concentrated on different variables according to their pet theories, and construction and validation groups mere relatively small. (107*1^2) Table I summarizes the pertinent research studies in chronological sequence* Some of the specific personal data items noted to have been related or unrelated to vocational rehabilitation are listed* Table II presents the items noted in Table I In their rank order* This may be considered as a crude estimate of the importance which investigators have attached to them when exploring the relationship of biographical data to vocational rehabili tation* TABLE 1 RECORDED RELATIONSHIPS OP PERSONAL DATA ITEMS TO VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION* Year Study Items Found Related to Successful Vocational Rehabilitation Items Found Not Related to Voo. Rehabilitation 1953 Lesser & Darling, N.Y. Institute for Crippled and Disabled Education, age at onset, time since onset. Sex. 1958 Adelphl College, N.Y. Time since onset, clerical background prior to onset, sex-marital status (married males). Age, sex, marital status, education, age at onset, jobs prior to onset. 1958 Community Rehabilita tion Center, Kansas City, Missouri Disability (non-visible— male; visible— female), marital status (married), disability (obese and blind). 1959 Senior Citizens Nashville, Tenn. Age at onset. 1959 Industrial Relations Center, Minneapolis, Minn. Sex, age at onset, disability (respiratory & orthopedic), eduoatlon, no. of dependents, marital status (married). Age, origin of dis ability, time from onset to employment occupation prior to disablement, present occupation. TABLE 1— Continued Year Study Items Found Related to Successful Vocational Rehabilitation Items Found Not Related to Voo, Rehabilitation 1959 Goodwill Industries Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma Education, marital status (married), number of depend ents, occupation, age at onset. Age. 1959 Industrial Relations Center, Minneapolis, Minn, Age, oocupatlon, disability. 1959 Orthopedic Foundation, Los Angeles, Calif, Race-age, race-sex, marital status-sex, martial status- race. i960 Utah, Wyoming, Montana Age at onset, education, disability (non-progressive). Sex, disability, (psychiatric or progressive). i960 Community Rehabilita tion Center, Hartford, Conn, Age, disability, disease, marital status (married), number of dependents. i960 Motto, Joseph L. Stable work history, no work history. i960 Haber, Wilfred New York Education, Age, sex, time since onset. TABLE 1— Continued Year Study Items Found Related to Successful Vocational Rehabilitation Items Found Not Related to Voc. Rehabilitation i960 McPh.ee & M&gleby Montana Marital status (married), source of support at applica tion (wages). i960 Chicago, 111. Job level (unskilled). i960 O.A.S.I., Hartford, Conn. Medical data, age, occupation, education. 1961 Scott & Stein Disability (amputee, back impairment), age, number of dependents, time since onset. 1961 Muthard & Jaques Nationwide Education. 1961 Voco Rehab. Service California Education. 1962 Newstrom, Minnesota Disability. 1962 Echols, Florida Age, sex, race. 1963 DeMann, Minnesota Source of support, disability, education, source of referral, age at onset. *A1 though many of these studies considered items other than those mentioned, only those variables are Included which are relevant to the present investigation. 37 TABLE 2 RANK ORDER OP ITEMS RELATED TO VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION Rank Order of Items Related to "Successful" Vocational Rehabilitation 1»*> Disability 1»5> Education 3 Marital Status l j . #5 Age l f . . £ Age at Onset 6 Occupation 7 Number of Dependents 8*5 Time since Onset 8*5 Sex 10•*> Race 10*5 Source of Support 12•5 Source of Referral 12•£ Work History Times Mentioned In Research Studies Reviewed 1 9 5 3 -1 9 6 3 8 8 7 6 6 5 1* 3 3 2 2 1 1 CHAPTER III THE PILOT STUDY A pilot investigation was conducted from February t 1962 until January 1 9 6 3* This study had two phases: ( 1) a review of investigations concerned with the reliabil ity of factual data, and (2) a pilot study to determine the feasibility of developing a survey instrument. Reliability of Factual Data Inasmuch as this research was to make use of personal data, it was necessary to determine the reliabil ity of this resource. Hence, in the Spring of 1 9 6 2, a review of the literature dealing with the reliability of "factual” data was completed® The conclusions of such Investigators as Bancroft (35)? Keating, et al. (51)# Parry, et al® ( 6 6), and Hardin, et al. (l|if), were not consistent. For example, Bancroft interviewed 1,595 families to determine the date of their latest relief grant, and also 2 ,9 6 4 persons requesting the date of their latest registration at the State Employment Office. She felt that most of the respondents in her study furnished Information which was consistent with that available from 38 39 another source, and that they tended to give more reliable information on general questions of their past or present status than they did on speciflo items such as dates, though percentages of agreement ranged from only 2£ per cent to as much as 92 per cent. Parry and his co-workers checked factual data Items such as age, possession of a telephone, ownership of a oar, possession of a valid driver's license, and reported invalidity of responses ranging from nearly zero to almost half. He concluded that the level of invalidity seemed to follow "social pressures•" In other words, the reliability of the item appeared to vary according to Its social acceptability, Keating checked the validity of work histories obtained by interview and reported correlations of employer and interview records of weekly wages of jobs held during the previous year as *90 for men, and ,93 for women. Correlations of duration of jobs held during the previous year were ,9 8 for both men and women. Correlations between reported and verified weekly wages of jobs held from one to four years previously ranged from ,9 1 to ,9 7 for the women, and ,62 to *95 for the men. The authors felt that these validity coefficients did not indicate any sex differences or any definite drop in validity, and that their data showed little distortion of job duties, even 1*0 for jobs held more than one year past* Hardin and his associates studied the accuracy of employee reports on changes In pay and stated that there was no significant relationship between accuracy and the age, sex, or years of education of the respondent. How ever, the proportion of failures to respond was greater than the proportion of responses in each of their two surveys. Of particular interest was a study done by Newstrom of both emotionally and physically disabled rehabilitated male veterans (110). Comparisons were made of their responses and those of their employers to ques tions regarding job titles, duties, hours of work, earnings, and length of employment. Inaccuracy ranged from 2.8 per cent to 1*6.6 per cent. There was no signifi cant difference between the responses of the physically and the emotionally disabled veterans. It was noted that in none of the studies were the terms "factual data" or "personal data" defined explicitly, although by inference, verifiability by public records appears to have served as the criterion. Because of the contradictory evidence thus revealed, it was decided that any conclusions reached in the present investigation should be considered with caution, inasmuch as the items to be used were to be drawn 41 from "factual" data supplied by the clients and Intake Counselors of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation In the Long Beach District* Moreover, an effort was made to check on the internal consistency of the data to be utilized* This will be described later* The Pilot Study In the Summer and Fall of 19&2» a pilot study was next conducted to determines 1* The kinds of personal, factual data which were gathered routinely at Intake* 2* Whether or not any of these data appeared to have a significant relationship to successful or unsuccessful vocational rehabilitation* Significant was defined as a P level of *10 or better* The pilot study utilized 20 items which were drawn from the clients’ application and employment record blanks, as well as from the Intake forms which were completed by the Intake Counselor at the Initial interview* The statis tical treatment was limited to the Chi Square technique because the items were a mixture of nominal, ordinal, and interval data* Consequently it was impossible to assume a normal distribution of measurements In the population from Which the sample was chosen, Chi Square had the additional advantage of giving an estimate of correlation* b2 Findings of the pilot Investigation The major findings of the pilot study were the following: 1. The establishment of a model for data organi zation* The original plan called for samples of each type of closure to be found in the files* It was decided to eliminate one group of closures from the major research (those rejected at Intake) because of the inadequate information contained in many of the folders* It was also decided that a distinction should be made between the clients whose files were closed before a plan could be initiated because they returned to work and those who were terminated at this stage for other reasons such as lack of interest in rehabilitation, illness, or unoooperativeness* 2* It would be advisable to clarify and reclassify some items so that they could be easily and reliably tabulated* 3* It would also be advisable to eliminate those items which could not meet these standards, i j . * No item proved to have significant value in discriminating between rehabilitated clients and all types of non-rehabllitated clients* Explanation of Closure Status Symbols Eventually, the file on every applicant to the California Department of Vocational Rehabilitation ia closed In one of four categories* The following explana tions are now presented so that future references to this terminology will be understandable; "1 2" closure (status "1 2”) This closure designates a case which has been rehabilitated« It means that the counselor and the client have developed a plan for vocational rehabilitation, that the client completed the plan (for example, schooling or on-the-job training), and was then gainfully employed for a period of not less them three months* Among the rehabilitated closures are some desig nated as "12A." Persons closed in this status are those whose wages ar© not sufficient to enable them to be entirely self-supporting* They ar© usually individuals who are employed in sheltered workshops at less than the standard wage level* Their productivity, while not up to the competitive requirements of the open labor market, nevertheless represents a substantial contribution to their own maintenance* In some instances n12An closure status is given to women who have completed their vocational preparation but who then withdraw from the labor market to marry* These women are equipped to work in competitive employment If necessary. wlgn closure (status "15") This designates a ease which has been closed not rehabilitated. It means that for any of a variety of reasons the counselor and the ollent were not able to develop a plan for vocational rehabilitation before the file was closed. For example, the case may have been closed because of an exacerbation of the client *s medical condition, or beoause the client was not Interested In the services which the agency had to offer, or perhaps because the client returned to employment on his own. n13" closure (status "ll") This also designates a case which has been closed as not rehabilitated. In this instance, however, the client and the counselor developed a plan for vocational rehabilitation, but the plan was not completed. For example, the client may have died, or evidenced disinterest in the program, or perhaps interference from outside sources such as family problems became too great to permit the client to continue. *0" closure (n0n status) This designates a case which was closed at Intake so that the applicant was not accepted as a client. In some Instances the services which the applicant needed might not have been available through the agency* or hie disability might have been terminal in nature--in other words* he might have had less than three years of life expectancy* or his disability might have been so severe that it was felt he could not profit from what the agency had to offer • It was this type of closure which was eliminated from the major research because all of the forms which contained the necessary information were not always present in the folders* From these explanations it can be seen that the term "rehabilitated” refers to "12" and "12A" closures only* while "non-rehabilitated" Includes both the "1 3" and "15>" closures* CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTION AND METHOD OP THE MAJOR INVESTIGATION The Population and Sample The pilot study was completed by January 19&3* From January 1963 to September of that year the writer awaited permission to begin the major investigation* In the Fall of 1963 clearance for the final research problem was received* The population to be studied was defined as: All of the cases dosed in status ”12" and "12A," status "15>,w and status "13" in the Long Beach area of the Long Beach District Office files in the fiscal year of 1962-6 3. Initially it had been planned to draw as a sample 100 eases of each of these three types of closures* How ever, there were only 94 oases closed in status "1 3" and it was therefore possible to us© 100 per cent of this group* In that year there were 236 cases closed in status "12." Approximately 10 per cent of these were designated as "12A." The same proportion was maintained in the sampling which was later taken. Two hundred and fifty*seven cases had been desig nated as "15" in this year. It will be remembered that sometimes a "1 5" closure occurred because the client found employment on his own. It was felt by the investigator that such individuals represented a different population from those closed in "1 5" for other reasons,, such as disinterest. The total population of "15" closures was therefore subdivided into those cases which were closed as "15" employed ("15”-E) and those which were closed as "15" unemployed ("15"-U). Th® "15"-E closures represented approximately 37 per cent of the total status "1 5" closures. This proportion was maintained in the sample which was later drawn. Control of the Counselor Variable Fortunately, during the year there were no major changes in counselor personnel, and it was possible to control the counselor variable by taking every other closed case in each category (" 1 2" and "1 5") of each counselor, and of course, all of the "13" closures. Table 3 shows the final sampling distribution. Internal Consistency Check In an effort to gain some measure of the accuracy of the factual data which was to be used in this study, a "spot" cheek of the internal consistency of three items 1 * 8 TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OP SAMPLE DRAWN PROM 1 9 6 2 -6 3 CLOSED FILES FOR RESEARCH Closure Status: "I2”s »1 3"a "15 "-Us "15’ ’-Efl Total N % N % N % N % N % Males 87 Ik 70 7k $9 73 1*2 89 258 76 Females 31 26 21* 26 22 27 11 82 21* Total 118 100 9k 100 81 100 100 3l *0 100 was next made from a randomly selected sample of £Q oases (every fifth folder). These items were? (1) education, (2) source of referral, and ( 3) disability. All of these items appear on both the applicants1 records and on the records of the Intake Counselor. Table 1* presents the results of this cross-check in terms of percentages of agreement and disagreement between clients and counselors, as well as the percentages of responses which could not be determined. It can be seen that although there were discrep ancies on all three items, the proportion of agreement in each instance exceeded £0 per cent. The percentage of inaccuracy ranged from 9 to 2 6, and each item contained some proportion of indeterminable responses. These results appear to be in line with those recorded In the literature, and although the degree of inaccuracy thus discovered is not exorbitant, it should nevertheless be held in mind during the consideration of the findings. TABLE 1+ PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE INTAKE COUNSELORST RECORDS AND THE APPLICANTSf RECORDS Education Source of Referral Disability N % N % N % Agreement 51 88 35 6o k3 Disagreement 5 9 15 26 9 16 Indeterminate 2 3 8 6 10 Total 58 100 58 100 58 100 The Items It will be recalled that the pilot study utilized 20 personal data items. Those which proved to be too difficult to record reliably were deleted and several others were added. The final research included 28 items which were subdivided into three groups; I. Personal-Social Data II. Disability Data III. Vocational Data so Each Item contained three or more "response” categories. The maximum number of responses was ten. Appendix A pre sents the items, their response categories, and their subgroupings. Twenty-one of these items were available directly from the client *s application blank and his employment record, or from the two Intake forms labeled VR-lj. Series (Appendix B). Although there were seven different revi sions of the VR-I4. Series, all contained the items used in this research. Seven of the items were indirectly avail able— numbers 1 2, 1 3, l6 , 2 0, 2 2, 2If, and 2 6. Rationale Most of the items reflect findings from previous research including the pilot study. However, there were several which were included because of the investigator's observations and the questions these had raised as a consequence. The rationale behind item 12 was briefly this: the ability to cope effectively with life's problems depends to a large extent upon the ability to communicate effectively with others. Furthermore, our culture values verbal communication to a very high degree. It might, therefore, be expected that persons who have limited verbal communication skills would also experience difficulty in maintaining or securing work, not only because of 51 functional impairment but also because of negative social attitudes. Item l6 was predicated on the assumption that impairments which might be expected to interfere with the individual's facility to exercise Judgment and control over his behavior might also be expected to interfere with his ability to make effective use of his rehabilitation program. Items Ilf and 17 were identical, except that the latter item considered emotional disturbance as a separate entity. In item l l | . this was "concealed" under disease. Items 13 and 20 were Included for two reasons; 1. It was felt that Impairments which are obvious would tend to affect both the Individual's self-concept and the perception of him by others in a negative manner. Thus, it might be expected that such persons, if so affected, would make poor employment prospects because of such symptoms as exaggerated concern with physical ailments or over-dependency on others for the performance of job duties. 2. Conversely, although our culture superficially regards disablement as a "socially acceptable" condition, the underlying cultural aversion to "imperfection" (what Leeper and Madison (5) refer to as "blue ribbon motivation" and what 52 Wright (15) considera the idealization of the normal) frequently forms the basis of employer resistance to hiring "the handicapped*" In other words, it was hypothesized that those persons who "appear" to be normal would be more likely to secure and maintain employment • Items 22 and 2If were designed to give a crude measure of the occupational backgrounds of DVR clients* In most instances the information reported by the client was sufficient only to allow the assignment of the first digit in the occupational code numbers from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Volume IV) (90)* The codings thus were not refined beyond this point* Item 26 was developed in an effort to determine whether the clients within the different closure groups might exhibit major differences in their educational levels as these were compared to their previous occupational levels* An approximation of this ratio was derived by subtracting the individual’s educational level as recorded in item 8 (number of years of education completed) from the median years of school completed by employed persons within his major occupation aooording to sex* Major occupation was determined by the Initial DOT code number of his longest job as this was recorded In item 2 i \ . a The median years of school completed by employed persons 18 years old and over in 19&2 was noted in a table presented 53 In an article by Johnston--"Uptrend in Workers* Education" — which appeared in the Occupational Outlook Quarterly ( 50: 18) . Finally, item 28 was included as a rough estimate of the stability of the client*s work history. Recording Responses to each of the 28 items were then tabu lated for each individual case within the total sample of 3l j ,0 . The zero category was used to account for items for which there was no response that could be appropriately recorded. During the process of tabulation two more compari sons were suggested by the frequencies of the data, although originally these had not been considered. These were: 1. The comparisons of the zero responses (in other words, those responses whioh were placed in this category because of lack of informa tion which would allow them to be recorded in other categories)• 2. The "never worked" or "insignificant work history" responses. Insignificant was defined as: part-time work, or work lasting three months or less. Inter-group comparisons were therefore made of 5k these two tabulations according to sex* All tabulations were double checked for aocuraoy* Hypotheses The null hypotheses for this research were formu lated as follows: 1* There is no significant sex or group difference between "1 2" closures and "1 3” closures in terms of each of the 28 items* 2* There is no significant sex or group difference between ”1 2” closures and "13>"-U closures in terms of each of the 28 items* 3* There is no significant sex or group difference between ”12” closures and "l£"-E closures in terms of each of the 28 items. I 4.. There is no significant sex or group difference between "1 3" closures and "15>"-U closures in terms of each of the 28 items* 5* There is no significant sex or group difference between "13” closures and "15"-E closures in terms of each of the 28 items* 6 . There is no significant sex or group difference between "15>"“U closures and "15>-E closures in terms of each of the 28 items* 7* There is no significant sex difference between the men and the women who were closed in status "1 2" in terms of each of the 28 items. 8. There is no significant sex difference between the men and the women who were closed in status "1 3" in terms of each of the 28 items* 9* There is no significant sex difference between the men and the women who were closed in status "l£”-U in terms of each of the 28 items. 10. There is no significant sex difference between the men and the women who were closed in status "1£”-E in terms of each of the 28 items* 11* There la no significant sex or group difference among persons of different closure status in terms of failure to respond to items. 12. There is no significant sex or group difference among persons of different closure status in terms of work history. It was also hypothesized that: Items which show a significant difference between the employed closures and the unemployed closures can be used to predict vocational rehabilitation and non-rehabilitation. Statistical significance was defined as a P level of .Of? or better. This probability standard was set at a relatively small value because it was felt that it would be better to run the risk of committing the Type I error, (that Is, to reject a null hypothesis even though It was true) than It would be to commit the Type II error and accept an hypothesis which was actually false. The potential use of the data for accepting or rejecting applicants for vocational rehabilitation services appeared to warrant this level of confidence. As Guilford states: "the odds, ultimately, cannot be decided on statistical grounds" ( 3 *2 1 6). In some groups of comparisons which were made, very few if any significant differences were found. Since the low expected frequencies also contributed to this occurrence, the probability standard was not entirely responsible. The possibility of the presence of Type II errors should nevertheless be remembered. The Statistical Techniques 56 Chi Square Again, as In the pilot study, the statistical technique was limited to the non-parametric Chi Square method since data were represented on nominal, ordinal, and interval scales, and because Chi Square had the advantage of giving an estimate of correlation. Due to the comparatively large number of item categories, the recorded data were not limited to two by two arrangements. It proved necessary to regroup some of the items into fewer categories because of the small number of some of the expected frequencies in the original classifications. Appendix C shows the final arrangement of the item cate gories as they were used in the Chi Square tests. In completing the inter-closure Chi Square tests, the men and women were considered separately, as well as in groups. In some instances, primarily those which involved the t t 15>n-employed closures, It was impossible to make Chi Square tests because of the limited number of expected frequencies occurring within some categories. Frequency rank order Five items could not be subjected to this statis tical treatment because they represented data on a nominal scale which could not be reduced to fewer categories 57 without losing Important Information* They were as follows: Item S > « Source of Referral Item 6. Major Source of Financial Support Item 15* Kind of Disability Item 22* DOT code of Most Recent Job Item 2if* DOT code of Longest Job The responses to these items were ranked according to the observed frequencies* CHAPTER V COMPARISONS OF MEN AND WOMEN WITHIN EACH CLOSURE STATUS It will be recalled that the purpose of this study was to determine whether or not "patterns" of character istics and/or isolated significant factors could be found to be related to the vocational rehabilitation or non rehabilitation of DVR clients in the Long Beach District. It will also be recalled that in addition to the inter group comparisons to be mad©* comparisons were to be run between the men and the women within each of the groups. The results of the comparisons made between the men and the women within each group will be considered first* since these appeared to have an important Influence on some of the inter-group comparisons. Comparison of Men and Women Closed In Status ' *1? and "ISA*----- The contrast between the men and the women closed in this status as rehabilitated proved to be the most Interesting and also the most clearly defined. Table 5 presents the results of these comparisons and shows item by item the specific Chi Squares, the P levels and 58 TABLE 5 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN CLOSED IN STATUS ”12" or "12-A" Group Item* X2 P Coefficient of Contingency 3 Marital status 2M P .01 •32 I k Dependents 6.6^ .05 .25 Personal-Social 8 Education 6.17 .02 .22 Data 9 Age IO.38 .01 .28 11 Years since onset 9.08 .01 .26 12 Impaired communication 4.31 •OS •19 Yates correction II lk Origin of disability (A) 19.26 .001 .37 Disability Data 16 Impaired intell. processes 6.3? .02 •23 Yates correction 17 Origin of disability (B) 25.74 .001 42 18 Age disabled for work H .04 .01 •30 III 21 Time since employment 11.73 .001 .32 Vocational Data *Null hypotheses were rejected for these items, Education M F Mean 10,2 11.£ Median 11 12 Range 6 - ES 8 - llf Number N 87 N 31 T 118 Age M F Mean 35 31 Median 35 Range 17 - 59 16 Number N 87 N 118 coefficients of contingency* 60 The rehabilitated man The trends within the tables whose Chi Squares achieved significance revealed that the rehabilitated men were more likely to be married, to have two or more dependents, to have had less than a high school education, and to be between the ages of 21 and 50 at the time of application* They also tended to have had their disabili ties less than five years, to have had disabilities which did not impair their communication with others nor their intellectual processes, to have had disabilities which resulted from an accident, and to have been disabled for work between the ages of 21 and i j . 5 * Most of those who had significant work histories had been employed within the year prior to the time they had made an application to DVR. The rank order of the frequencies tabulated for the five items which could not be subjected to the Chi Square tests are given in Tables 6-10. These show that the four major referral resources for the men were: the Department of Employment, other individuals, the Insurance agencies, and the individual himself (in descending order)* These referral resources accounted for 72 per cent of the rehabilitated men* In addition, the largest number of the men listed their families as their major source of financial support 6l TABLE 6 (ITEM 5) HANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison Rank Sex Frequency ("12" M/F) M F M F 1 3 2 19 8 2 2 1 18 6 3 7 5 J 8) Ilf 5 if 1 12 5 * 8 if 9 3 6 if 6 6 2 7 6 5 1 8 5 9) If 1 9 9 7 0 N = 87 0 31 T « 118 1 Self 2 Other individual 3 California Dept* of Employment I f Doctor 5 School 6 Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 62 TABLE 7 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FIHAHCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("12" H/F) Rank Sex Frequency M F M F 1 1 1 31# . 22 2 6 fc 20 5 3 S 6 3 3 3 10 1 5 k $\ 7 0 ) 6 2 2) 2 0 H = 8? 31 T = 118 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 3 Wages or savings I f . Public agenoy 5 Unemployment Insurance o Workmen’s Compensation 63 TABLE 8 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OF KINDS OF DISABILITIES Comparison Rank Sex ■ Frequencies ("12" M?F) M F M F 1 5 ) ) 9* 25 11 2 9*) 8) ) 1) 25 6 3 7 10 6 If If 3 8 3 S 6 M 7) 7 2 6 l 2 7 8 5 3 1 8 2) ) 2) y ) 2 0 9 3) 6 ) 2 N a 87 0 31 T = 118 I 1 Emotional -s-Impaired extremities 2 Mental retardation Epilepsy 18 M Cardiac 6 F Back Impairment 2^ O Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment 61* TABLE 9 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("12" M/F) Rank Sex Frequency M F M F 1 6 3 33 8 2 5 2 18 4 3 2 6 9 3 1* 3 1 7 2 5 1 6 1 6 7 1* 1* 0 7 1* 7 2 0 ® 8 79 18 T . 97 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service I * 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 k or 5 Skilled 6 o or 7 Semi»skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled 65 TABI£ 10 (ITEM 2 l f . ) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF LONGEST JOB Comparison Rank Sex Frequency ("12" M/F) M F M F 1 6 2 28 8 2 5 3 2k 6 3 fc 2 3 1) ) 6) 8 6 2 2 5 7) k ] 3 0 6 s ! 7) 3 0 7 1 1 N - 73 0 18 T - 91 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service k 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 a or 5 Skilled 6 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled 66 (39 per cent). Category £ of this item (which Included Workmen's Compensation, Disability Insurance, and Pensions) ranked as the second major source of support, and Unemploy ment Insurance ranked third. These three categories accounted for 78 per cent of the rehabilitated men. Only 8 per cent were supported by public funds from either the Bureau of Public Assistance or State Mental Hygiene, and only 6 per cent had been referred by the Bureau of Public Assistance (Table 7)• It can be seen from Table 8 that back injuries represented the major disability for the ”1 2” men, while Category 9 (which Included disabilities not specifically classified) ranked second. Within Category 9> 1® men had suffered some type of impairment to their extremities, so that if there had been a separate classification for this medical condition, it would have ranked second to back injuries. The third major disability proved to be visual impairment. These three categories (back injuries, Impaired extremities, and visual impairment) accounted for 6 0 per eent of the rehabilitated men. Finally, the single DOT code of these clients * most recent jobs ranked semi-skilled labor, ©killed labor, and service occupations as 1, 2, and 3 respectively. These rankings accounted for 70 per oent of the rehabili tated men. The same rank order was maintained in the DOT 67 code rankings for their longest jobs, and again accounted for 70 per cent of these men* Modal characteristics of the rehabilitated man It is sometimes helpful to synthesise isolated bits of information in a way which presents a more coherent description. For this reason, an attempt will be made to summarise the statistical data concerning these clients in terms of "modal” characteristics—-characteristics which appear to be most common within the particular group being considered. It should be emphasized, however, that these descriptions merely represent the "central tendency" in the same way as the mode, and that wide variations will exist for each characteristic and for specific individuals. In summary, then, it can be speculated that the "typical" or "modal” rehabilitated male client is a family man, who In the prime of his working years suffers an aooident which results in impairment to his back or to an extremity. Previously, he functioned at an occupational level where physical fitness was the major requirement for maintaining his job. His limited education and (by infer ence) his limited Intelligence now place added restrictions on his employability. In this time of stress he depends upon his family or upon temporary insurance benefits for financial support and upon DVR for help in re-entering the labor market. 68 The rehabilitated woman In contrast, the trends within the cells of the Chi Square tables show that the rehabilitated female clients tended to be single, or separated or divorced, and to have either no dependents or only one. They also tended to have a high school education or better, were likely to be 20 or under, to have had either a congenital condition or a disease, and a disability which Impaired either their communication with others or their Intellectual processes. They were more likely to have been disabled for work by the age of 20, and If they had worked, to have had their most recent jobs more than a year prior to their applica tions to DVR. The major referral source for the women proved to be other Individuals, while those who had sought help on their own ranked second, and those who had been referred by a school or a public or private agency (other than the Bureau of Public Assistance) ranked third. As in the case of the men, the major source of financial support for JO per cent of the women was the family unit. Public agencies (Bureau of Public Assistance and State Mental Hygiene) ranked second, while insurance agencies ranked third. All but one of the rehabilitated women were accounted for in these three groups. The major disability category for the rehabilitated women was Category 9 (other impairments)* Within this oategory the majority ( 6 ) had suffered impaired extremi ties* Since 6 women had hearing disabilities and 6 others had emotional problems, these three classifications tied for first place and included $0 per cent of the rehabili tated women« The DOT code rankings for the most recent jobs of the women who had had significant work histories showed that almost half had last been employed in service occupa tions* In the DOT code rankings of their longest jobs, however, clerical and sales work came first* It should be pointed out that 1|2 per cent of the rehabilitated women could not be given DOT code rankings, either because their responses were inadequate, or because they had never worked, or had had insignificant work histories* Modal characteristics of the rehabilitated woman In summary, the rehabilitated women appeared to be divisible into two groups: 1* Young women (20 or under) who had never worked or who had insignificant work histories* 2* Older women (21 plus) who had substantial work histories* It is speculated that the "modal" young woman in the first group might be described as a single person who 70 had typically suffered a congenital condition or a disease which tended to impair her intellectual processes and/or her ability to communicate with others. Upon graduation from high school she was referred by the sohool or by friends to DVR for help in entering the labor market. The "modal" woman in Group 2, however , appeared to need vocational assistance for other reasons* It is suggested that this was a woman—-often with young children --who because she was widowed, separated, or divorced, may now have felt impelled to find a means of supporting her self and her family* Because of a disabling disease or emotional problems, she could no longer function in the physically demanding and stressful service occupations which she had held, even though she had a high school education or better, nor would these jobs ordinarily offer sufficient wages to enable her to support herself and her dependents. In other instances, previously held clerical skills which might have promised appropriate employment were now rusty, and help was sought in bringing them to an employable level* She was supported during this stressful period by her family, though ©he usually came to DVR at the suggestion of friends or on her own initiative* Comparison of Men and Women Closed In Statu© W1HH The comparisons of the men and the women in the two non-rehabllitated groups (" 1 3” and ”1 5”) presented a 71 strange contrast to the comparisons of the rehabilitated men and women, for there were very few significant differ ences--the Chi Square tests between the men and the women closed in status ”1 3" (those whose plans were not completed) showed only two* The test could not be made on item 28 (number of breaks in work history) because of the low number of expected frequencies in the cells for the women* The ”13" man One of the significant items--marital status—-was a factor which had discriminated between the men and the women in the ”12” closure group® Although there was no difference between the expected and the observed number of "1 3" men and women who were single, there were more men who were married or widowed than expected, and fewer who were separated or divorced* The other item which discriminated significantly between the sexes was that concerned with the length of the client7s longest job* More "1 3" men had worked three years or more than might have been expected to do so (Table 11)* There were, however, apparent differences on some items which could not be subjected to this statistical treatment* Insurance companies and the Department of Employment tied for first place as sources of referral for the "13” men* Next cam® public or private agencies (not including the Bureau of Public Assistance), and then TABLE 11 FACTORS DISCRIMIHATING BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN CLOSED IN STATUS "13" Group Item* X 2 p C oefficient of Contingency I Personal-Social Data 3 Marital status 21.31V .001 4 3 III Vocational Data 25 Length of longest job 5.94 <M O « •35 fates correction *Null hypotheses rejected for these Items. Education M P M Age F Mean 9*7 Median 10.2 Range 0 - l6 Number N * 70 Mean Median Range Number 73 doctors* These referral resources accounted for 6I 4. per cent of the men* The family unit proved to be the major source of support* although pension benefits ranked a close second (Tables 12 and 13)* The disability rankings for these non-rehabllitated men gave back impairments first place* followed by impaired extremities and heart problems (Table llj.)* The two major DOT code numbers of the longest jobs held by the recorded men were assigned to semi-skilled and skilled Jobs* The third rank was held by clerical and sales codes* However* 10 per cent of these men gave Insufficient information in their employment records and they could not be assigned DOT code numbers* Tables 15 and 16 show the rank orders of these items* Prom Table 16 it can be seen that over one-third of the men could not be coded for item 2l j . * The Chi Square test for item 18 approached signifi cance* The trend within the cells indicated that more of the men than expected had been disabled at the age of l j .6 or beyond. Modal characteristics of the "1 3" man In summary* it can be speculated that the "modal" "1 3" closure male client who is unable to complete his vocational rehabilitation plan is married or widowed* and 71f TABLE 12 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP REFERRAL Comparison ("13" M/P) Rank Sex Frequency M p M P 1 7)> 3) 6 llf 9 2 9 llf 6 3 8 1 10 3 1+ k k 7 2 5 2) ) 3 I 6 1 6 1) 6 1 7 6) ) i 7) ) 5 1 8 9) 8) 5 1 9 5 2 3 N - 70 0 2 l f . T » 9if 1 Self 2 Other Individual % California Dept, of Employment k Doctor 5 School o Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 75 TABLE 13 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison (”13" M/F) Rank Sex Frequency M F M F 1 1 I f 2lf 13 2 6 1 2 0 8 3 5 6 11 2 k k 3 10 1 5 3 5 k 0 6 2 2 1 0 N - 70 2i* T « 9if 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church % Wages or savings q. Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance 6 WorkmenTs Compensation 76 TABLE llf (ITEM 1$) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison Rank Sex Frequencies ("1 3" 100 M P M p 1 9* 9*j 1 > 21 7 2 5 16 7 3 If 5 11 3 If 6 ;> 6) 6 2 5? 2) ) 7) 5 2 6 2) \ 5 1 7 8 3) ) 1) 7l 8^ 3 3 1 1 9 8 3 0 N = 70 0 2lf T a 9lf i 1 Emotional ^Impaired extremities 2 Mental retardation Epilepsy 13 M Cardiao _JL F Back impairment llf o Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment 77 TABLE 15 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF MOST RECENT JOB Comparison (”13" M/F) Rank Sex Frequency M F M F 1 6 3) 6) 17 5 2 5 12 5 3 2 1 10 1 k 7 2) . ) 8 0 5 3 5 0 6 1) ) 5) ) 1 0 7 k) 7) 1 N s 5k 0 11 t * 65 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled i 78 TABLE 16 (ITEM 2lf) R A N K O R D E R S O F D O T C O D E O F L O H O E S T JO B Comparison ("13" M/F) Rank Sex Frequency M F H F 1 6 6 14 2 2 5 l { 10 1 3 1) \ / 2) ) 3) 4 1 4 2! ) 4 1 5 7) 4 0 6 3 5 I 4) 3 0 7 4 0 M a 39 0 £ t * 44 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerloal and sales 3 2 Serviee 4 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 a or 5 Skilled o 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled 79 has worked three years or more at hla longest job which was at the semi-skilled level* At age If 6 or beyond he suffers a disabling back or extremity Impairment, la then referred to DVR by an Insurance agency or the Department of Employment, or by someone In a public or private agenoy* During this time of stress hla major source of financial support is his family, or some type of disability benefit* The "13" woman Significantly, fewer of these women than expected were married or widowed, though more were separated or divorced. Moreover, fewer had worked three years or more than would have been expected* The rank order frequencies indicated that the Bureau of Public Assistance placed first as the major source of referral for the "1 3" woman, followed by Sheltered Workshops* These referral resources claimed 6 3 per cent of the women* For the largest number of "13" women (£if per cent), the Bureau of Public Assistance also provided financial support, while the family assisted one- third of them* Miscellaneous difficulties (such as dental condi tions, obesity, and arthritis) led the list of their disabilities, but the single, most common problem was emotional disturbance* The rank order for their most recent jobs showed 80 that service occupations tied for first place with semi skilled code classifications« These two occupational categories accounted for 90 P®r cent of the women who had significant work histories and who had given sufficient information so that DOT code numbers could be assigned. However, 1|2 per cent of the women could not be coded. The unrecorded group equalled per cent on item 2l j . . It is important to note that only 2 \ ± . women were closed in this status and that a larger number might have changed the results. On item 12, the trend within the cells approached significance and Indicated that more of these women than expected had disabilities whloh impaired their communication with others. Modal characteristics of the ”1 3” woman The W13M woman who Is unable to complete her vocational rehabilitation plan appears to be one who has been separated or divorced. She has worked less than three years on the longest Job which she has held. She tends to be disabled by emotional problems and is already being supported by public funds from either the Bureau of Public Assistance or State Mental Hygiene. She is referred by the Bureau of Public Assistance or by a Sheltered Workshop to DVR for assistance. It seems likely that in the case of both the men 81 «nd the women who have been closed In this status, a laok of commitment to a vocational future (as this Is suggested by the large numbers of these clients who failed to give adequate information on their employment records) might be one of the major deterrents to the successful completion of their programs. Comparison of Men and Women Closed In m m m S K ‘ ----- f l g i S u s ' " I g - t T " ' ------- - The comparisons of the men and women for whom no plan could be initiated and who were closed unemployed (nl*>-Uw) also showed many more similarities than differ ences. The "IS" unemployed man At the significant level, items $» k» *nd 23 showed that: (1) more men than expected were married or widowed, and fewer were single or separated or divorced; (2) fewer of the men had no dependents than was to be expected, and most had one or more; and ( 3) the men also tended to have worked more than a year on their most recent jobs (Table 1?)® Prom the rank order items it can be seen that almost half had been referred by insuranoe agencies or the California Department of Employment, and that the largest number were supported primarily by their families, although this first order ranking was followed closely by disability TABLE 17 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN MEN AND WOKEN CLOSED IN STATUS "15-U" Group Item# X2 P C oefficient of Contingency I Personal-Social Data 3 Marital status 4 Number of dependents 6.k2 6.58 .05 .05 I 2& III Vocational Data 23 Length of most reoent job 6.87 .01 .31 #Mull hypotheses rejected for these items. Education U ---f Mean 10 10.3 Median 10 11 Bangs 0 - l l j . 6 - HS Number N = 59 N a 22 81 Kean Median Bangs Number 36 $-62 H * 59 34.9 1 1 - 56 N « 22 81 benefits as the seoond major source of income* For these men* back injuries* impaired extremities* and cardiac problems held first, seoond* and third places in the disability frequencies« Over half had worked at the semi skilled level in their most recent jobs* and exactly half had been employed at this level on their longest jobs* Although Chi Square tests could not be completed for items I l f . and 17 (origin of the disability) because of the low expected frequencies in one of the cells* the trend in these tables indicated that the men tended to be disabled by accidents* Modal characteristics of the "15" unemployed man In summary* the "modal" male client who is closed In status "15-U" appeared to be a married man who had one or more dependents* On his most recent job (which lasted a year or longer) he worked at the semi-skilled level* Because of a back injury which Interfered with his ability to meet the physical requirements at his occupational level he was referred to DVR either by an insurance agency or the Department of Employment* During this time of stress he was supported by his family or was dependent upon disability benefits or public funds* The "15" unemployed woman The significant items indicated that the women 8k tended to be single, separated, or divorced, to have no dependents, and to have worked less than a year at their nost reoent employment • Half of them were referred by the Bureau of Public Assistance and by Sheltered Workshops, and half of them were supported by their families« All but two of the remaining women depended upon public funds from either the Bureau of Public Assistance or State Mental Hygiene* Emotional problems and impaired extremities tied for the first rank order of their disabilities followed by a tie between back injuries and cardiac problems. The trends apparent in items li*. and 17 showed that the women appeared to have been disabled by disease and emotional problems. Many of them had worked in clerical and sales or service occupations on their most reoent jobs as well as on their longest jobs. Tables 18-22 present these results in Itemised form. As in the case of the "13"s, the number of ”15" unemployed women was small and these findings should therefore be viewed with caution* Modal characteristics of the "1 5* unemployed woman In contrast, it can be speculated that the "modal” woman closed in status "15-TJ" was single, separated or divorced, and had no dependents* She had worked less than 85 TABLE 16 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison Rank Sex Frequency ("15-TJ" m/f) M F M F 1 7 6 15 6 2 3 9 12 5 3 k 8 9 k h 8 *\ 6 2 5 6 / 3) 6 2 6 l 1) ) 5 1 7 2 7) ) 2 1 8 9) \ 2) 1 1 9 1 N . 59 0 22 T - 81 1 Self 2 Other Individual 3 California Dept* of Employment \ Do o tor 5 School 6 Bureau of Publie Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 86 TABLE 19 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison Sex Frequency ("15-U" M/F) itftnK M F M F i 1 1 18 11 2 6 k 17 9 3 h 6 10 2 k 5 3 J 5 j 9 0 $ 3 5 0 6 2 2) 0 N - 59 0 22 T • 81 1 Family or alimony 2 Frlands or church " K Wages or savings I j . Public agency 5 Unemployment insurance o Workmen*s Compensation 87 TABLE 20 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison Rank Sex Frequencies ("15-TJ" m/p) M P M P 1 9* 9* 22 9* 2 5 1 20 3 k 5) > k 2 k 6) ) 1) ) 3 2 5 3 2 6 8) 3 2 7 3) 2 3 1 8 2 6) ) 1 0 9 8 7) 0 N - 59 0 22 T * 81 I 1 Emotional Impaired extremities 2 Mental retardation Epilepsy 6 M Cardiac If F Baok impairment 0 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment 88 TABLE 21 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF MOST RECENT JOB Comparison Rank Sex Frequency ("15-T7" U/F) M F M F 1 6 2 27 7 2 5 3 9 3 3> 7) 6 ) ) 7) 5 2 if 5 2 5 2 if) 3 0 6 1) if) 5 1 0 7 1) 1 N ■ 51 0 16 T s 67 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 k or 5 Skilled o 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled 39 TABLE 22 (ITEM 2li) RAHK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF LOHQEST JOB Comparison Rank Sex Frequency ("15-U" v/f) M F M F 1 6 3 25 6 2 5 2 10 I f 3 3 6i 6 2 I f UJ 7) 3 2 5 7) 1 3 1 6 2 5) \ 2 0 7 1 1 N . 50 0 15 t « 65 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service I j . 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 k or 5 Skilled 6 o or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled 90 a year at her most reoent job in either a service, clerical, or sales occupation. Emotional problems or a disease whioh affected her extremities presented a sub stantial vocational handicap. This woman depended upon her family for temporary financial help, though she was in the process of seeking aid from either the Bureau of Public Assistance or a Sheltered Workshop, These agencies referred her to DVR, Comparison of Men and Women Closed in —“---- r assT'"rs-E*------ Unfortunately, sex comparisons could be made on only three of the items for these individuals closed as employed because of the low numbers of the expected fre quencies in many of the categories. None of these three Chi Squares showed significant differences between the men and the women, nor did the trends within the other tables indicate any significant differences (Tables 23-28, Appendix D)« The "1!>W employed man The largest number of "l£" employed men had been referred by the Department of Employment, or by other individuals or by insurance agencies. Three of the five women had been self-referrals. The largest number of men had been supported by Unemployment Insurance, with disability benefits and 91 family help ranking In a tie for second. Two of the five women were supported by their families, two by Unemployment Insurance, and one by a public agency* Back impairments were recorded for the largest number of men in this olosure status. Cardlao problems and impaired extremities ranked seoond and third. Most of the men had held their most recent jobs (as well as their longest jobs) at the semi-skilled level, and all but one could be assigned the code numbers of these two items. Modal characteristics of the "1 5" employed male The "modal" "15” employed male client seemed to be a man who had less than a high school education, who had worked at the semi-skilled level, and who because of a back Injury, a cardiac difficulty, or an impaired extremity should seek more sedentary work. Perhaps beoause of the pressure of family responsibilities, however, he found employment on his own, though it seems likely that he frequently returned to work which was inappropriate to his impairment. The "15" employed woman It appears fruitless to speculate about the "typical" ”1 5” employed woman on the basis of the five cases. However, the items would seem to have relevance for further Investigation with larger samples. 92 Table 29 presents the significant Chi Squares, their P levels, and the coefficients of contingencies for these four groups of comparisons* It can be seen that the coefficients of contingency ranged from *19 to .^3* Eight of these coefficients ($ 0 per cent) mere at or above *3 0* Guilford (3 S 3I6 ) has prepared a table which shows the maximal values attainable for coefficients of contingency with varying numbers of categories for the variables* The maximum coefficients of contingency for 2, 3, or* cate gories (those used in this research) are *7 0 7» «8l6 , and *866 respectively* It would, therefore* appear that the relationships herein determined would have respectable significance* TABES 29 SIGNIFICANT FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN WITHIN ALL (HOOTS Group Item X2 P Coefficient of Contingency Closure Status> 12 15-2 15-u 13 12 15-B 15-u 13 12 15-® 15-u 13 • g 3 Marital status 13.70 „ 6Ji2 21.34 .01 MM .05 .001 .32 MM .27 .43 4 Dependents 6.64 — 6.88 — .05 - .05- — .25 — .28 — H . < 8 9 Q 8 Education 6.17 — — .02 * - — « — .22 - — — U w £ 9 Age 10,38 —— Mm MW .01 MM — •28 MM MM MM 11 Tears since onset 9.08 —— -r - MM .01 MM MM .26 MM MM MM § 12 Impaired coaauaication 4.31 — —- — .05 — - —> — .19 — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a i l 1U Origin of disability (A) 19.26 — — - - - - - - - - - .001 — — — .37 - - - - - - - - - — — 1 « 16 Impaired intell« processes 6.39 —- — — .02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — .23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - 1 17 Origin of disability (B) 25.74 — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .001 — — .42 — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q 18 Age disabled for work 11.04 MM MM .01 MM — .30 — — — 21 Time sines last employment 11.73 _ mmr MM .001 MM MM _ .32 - - - - - - - - - 23 Length of most recent job — 6.87 — — “ .01 — — - - - - - - - - - .31 - - - - - - - - - B-p 25 Length of longest job 5.94 .02 .35 CHAPTER VI COMPARISONS OF REHABILITATED WITH NOH-REHABILITATED CLIENTS The statistical model for this research Included the formulation of null hypotheses of inter-group differ ences* which were to be examined on the basis of sex* as well as the total number in the group* This decision proved to be particularly fortuitous* for in several instances it will be seen that significant differences which occurred within the sex groupings were cancelled out in the total sample so that inter-group differences did not appear* Similarly* differences which sometimes did not quite achieve the significance level within the sex groups did so when the total group was examined* The comparisons of the rehabilitated clients to the three groups of non-rehab Hi tated clients will be considered first* Comparison of Status "12" and Status wl3* Clients Comparison of women closed in status WU W and status The Chi Square tests made on the 28 items to 95 determine signifleant differences between the women who were rehabilitated, and the women in the "1 3" closure group (those whose plans had not been completed) revealed only one Chi Square which achieved the *05 level of confi dence* This came from item number 8, the number of years of education, which showed that the rehabilitated women tended to have a high school education or better* The women in the "1 3" status closure group, on the other hand, tended to have less than a high school, education* It will be recalled that Chi Square tests were also made of the numbers of clients within each group who responded to the various vocational data items* Here the oontrast between the rehabilitated women and those who had not oompleted their vocational plans was quite startling, for all of these Chi Squares indicated differences at the *01 level of confidence or better* These tests, of course, considered only those women who had had significant work experiences (Table 30)* It was also found that while 71 per cent of the rehabilitated women had been supported largely by their families, 5 4 par cent of the non-rehabilitated women listed the Bureau of Public Assistance as their main source of support* Furthermore, almost half of the rehabilitated women had referred themselves to DVR or had been referred by other individuals, while over half of the "1 3” women TABLE 30 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN WOMEN CLOSED IN STATUS "12" AND "13" Group Item* X2 P Coefficient of Contingency if. 82 .00 .28 7*82 .01 •lf2 Yates correction 7.82 .01 •42 Yates correction 14-93 .001 .53 Yates correction 19-42 .001 •58 Yates correction 19.42 .001 •58 Yates correction 9.10 .01 .1*4 9-65 .01 •45 Yates correction Personal-Social Data III Vocational Data 8 Education 21 No response (Time since last employment) 22 No response (DOT code of most recent job) 23 No response (Length of most reoent job) 24 No response (DOT eode of long est job) 25 No response (Length of longest job) 27 No response (Number of employers) 28 No response (Breaks in work history of one month or more) ♦Null hypotheses rejected for these items* 97 had been a ant by the Bureau of Public Aaalatanee or by Sheltered Workshops* Disability rankings were also somewhat dissimilar in that the non-rehab ill tated women suffered from "other" impairments such as arthritis or dental problems* as well as emotional problems and baek impairments* The "12" women tended to hare hearing difficulties* emotional difficulties* or impaired extremities* In addition* the largest number of the "12" women had held their most reoent jobs at the serrlee ooeupation lerel* and their longest jobs in the clerloal and sales fields* In contrast* DOT codings for the most reoent jobs of the "1 3" women indicated serrioe oeoupations and semi skilled jobs as tying for first place* while the first rank order of longest job oode classifications was at the semi-skilled lerel of work* It should be remembered* howerer* that a significant number of the "13” women failed to hare a soorable response on these items* so that the numbers from which these last roeational data are derired are too small to be reliable (Tables 31-35)• Oomcarlson of the men closed in ktatua ^ I P ' akFZT&UB wliv------ The significance tests for the "12" as opposed to the "13" men rerealed that while there was no difference between the expected and observed frequencies of "12" and 98 TABUS 31 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison Group Frequency ("12"/"13" Female) XiQUin ”12" "13” ”12" "13" 1 2 6 8 9 2 1 9 6 6 3 5) \ 1 5 3 k &\ k S 2 £ k 3 I n 3 1 6 6 2 1 7 3i ) l 1 8 9) 8) 1 1 9 7 2 O 1 H 1 0 1 S e lf 2 Other Individual California Dept* of Employment 1 J . Doe tor 5 School 0 Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 99 TABLE 3 2 (ITEM 6 ) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Group Comparison (»12"/"13" Femaie) Rank 12 22 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or ehnreh 3 Wages or savings I j . Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance 6 Workmen’s Compensation 100 table; 33 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OF KINDS OF DISABILITIES Comparison ("12 /"13" Female) Rank Group Frequency "12" "13” "12" "13" 1 9* 9*) ) 11 7 2 8) ) 1 ) 6 7 3 1) 5 6 3 k 3 ? 6) 3 2 5 7) 2 2 6 2) ) 2 1 7 $ 7) ) 1 1 8 2) 6) 8) 0 1 9 3 O 1 H 1 c * \ - £ * 1 o I 1 Emotional Imp aired extremities *12” s 6 2 Mental retardation "13” « 1 Epilepsy “7 Cardiac Back impairment b Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment H C M f'Vd'UY© r- 101 TABLE 3I 1 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison Rank Group Frequency ("12"/"13" Female) w12" "13" "12" "13" 1 3 3 6) 8 5 2 2 k 5 3 6 1 3 1 k 1 2) \ 2 0 5 5 s! s 1 0 6 7) 0 0 7 7) 0 18 0 11 0 Professional 1 Clerical and sales 2 Service 3 Agriculture and Fishing k or $ Skilled o or 7 Semi-skilled 8 or 9 Unskilled 102 TABLE 35 (ITEM a l | . ) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OF LONGEST JOB Comparison (12"/" 13” Female) Rank Group Frequency "12" "13" "12" "13" 1 2 6 8 2 2 3 3| 6 1 3 1) 1) 2 1 ) k 6) 2) 2 1 5 M 0 0 6 5) \ 0 0 7 J 7) / 7) 0 0 18 5 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service I j . 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 | or 5 Skilled 6 o or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled 103 "1 3" non who were age 20 and under, there were more "1 2" men than expected who had been disabled between the ages of 21 and \ \ $ , and fewer of the rehabilitated men who had been disabled for work beyond this age* Item 21 (whleh recorded the time alnoe last employment) and Item 28 (whleh accounted for the number of breaks of one month or more in the client *s work history) also showed significant differ ences between these two groups of men. The "12” men tended to have worked within the last year at their most reoent jobs, and to have had three breaks or less In their work histories. As In the case of the ”12” and "13” women, the tests of the differences between those who responded to the vocational Items and those who did not within each of these status closure groupings, again showed significant differences on all items except one. Five of the six Chi Squares had P levels at the .01 level or better (Table 3&). The rank orders of the referral sources Indicated that almost 35 per cent of the rehabilitated men had been referred by themselves or by other individuals, while less than half of this percentage (1 7 per cent) of non rehabilitated men had been so referred. However, the rank orders of the three major sources of financial support showed no differences between them, with families account ing for the largest number in each instance. TABLE 36 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN MEN CLOSED IN STATUS "12" AND "13" Group Item* X2 p Coefficient of Contingency 6.19 *05 .19 6.03 •02 *21 .01 •29 Tates correction 1**35 •17 Tates correction 9.1*0 .01 •2^ Tates correction 15»11 •001 •31 Tates oorreotlon llf.30 *001 •31 Tates correction 11.93 *001 • 28 4.26 .05 •17 Tates correction II Disability Data III Vocational Data 18 Age disabled for work 21 Time since last employment 28 Breaks in work history of one month or more 22 No response (DOT code of most reoent job) 23 No response (Length of most reoent job) 2 i j . No response (DOT oode of long est job) 25 No response (Length of longest job) 27 No response (Number of employers) 28 No response (Breaks in work history of one month or more) *Null hypotheses rejected for these items* 105 B&ok injuries headed the Hat of diaabilltlea for both groupings, followed by impaired extremities in second rank order for both* However, visual problems character ised the next largest grouping of "1 2" men, in contrast to cardiao conditions among the ”1 3" men* Again there were no differences between the first three rank order DOT code classifications of the most reoent jobs of these clients, nor was there any difference among the first three ranks of the DOT code classifications of the longest jobs held by them (Tables 37-1^1). In summarizing the sex differences which appeared in the comparisons made of the rehabilitated men and women, and the men and women whose plans were not oompleted, these tendencies appeared: 1. The rehabilitated women had a significantly higher educational level than their non rehabilitated counterparts. 2* The rehabilitated men had been disabled for work some time during the prime of their work ing years and they had worked within the last 12 months prior to their applications to DVR. 3* The men also had fewer breaks of one month or more in their work histories. I j . . Both the rehabilitated men and women completed their employment records in such a way that lo6 TABLE 37 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison (»1 2"/&1 3" Male) Rank Group Frequency "1 2" "13" "1 2" "13" 1 3 3 ] 19 H* 2 2 7) 18 3 7 8 Ik 10 k 1 4 12 7 5 8 1) ) 2) 9 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 ) ) 9) 5 5 8 5 5 9 9 5 0 87 3 70 1 Saif 2 Other Individual 3 California Dept* of Employment 4 Doctor 5 School o Bureau of Public Aeaictanee 7 Incurano© agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 107 TABLE 38 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("12"/*13" Male) Rank Group Frequency "12" "13" "12" "13" 1 1 1 3 *t 2l t 2 6 6 20 20 3 5 5 l i t 11 i t 3 * t 10 10 5 k 3 7 I t 6 2 2 2 1 87 70 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or ohuroh 3 Wages or savings I j . Pub lie ageney 5 Unemployment Insurance o WorkmenTs Compensation 108 TABLE 39 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OF KINDS OF DISABILITIES Comparison Male) Rank Group Frequenoy "12" "13” "12" "13" 1 9*) 9* 25 21 2 5 ) 5 25 16 3 7 k 10 11 k k 6 8 6 5 6 2) ) 7 5 6 1 7) 5 5 7 8 1) ) 3) 3 3 8 2) ) 3) 2 3 9 8 0 0 I 1 ro 0 1 0 1 Emotional #Impaired extremities ”12” « 18 2 Mental retardation "13” « 13 Epilepsy 31 Cardiac Baok impairment Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment 1 109 TABLE J|0 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF MOST RECENT JOB Comparison Rank Group Frequency ft 12"/n13" Male) "1 2" "13" "1 2" "13" 1 6 6 33 17 2 £ 5 18 1 2 3 2 2 9 10 If 3 7 7 8 5 1 3 6 5 6 7 1) If) If 1 7 i f 2 79 l 5k 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service ( 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 } or 5 Skilled o 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled H t V l C ' W U Y O r - 1X0 TABLE ifl (ITEM 2lf.) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF LONGEST JOB Comparison (i»12»/&i3» Male) Rank Group Frequency "1 2" "13" "1 2" "13" 1 6 6 28 li* 2 5 5 2il 10 3 2 2) \ 8 u u 3 ll ) 7) 6 k 5 3 k 6 7) 3 3 3 7 1 k 1 73 0 39 0 Professional 1 Clerical and sales 2 Service 3 Agriculture and fishing k or £ Skilled 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 8 or 9 Unskilled Ill the vocational data which was utilized in this study could he recorded in a significantly larger number of instances than vas possible with the non-rehabllitated men and women* f oKDarlson of all persons closed nsTaius" " * !^ an/"status "IT In comparing the total groups within these two status closures education* age* time since last employment* number of breaks in the work history* and s cor able responses en vooatlonal items showed significant differences between them. Although years of education did not discriminate between the ”1 2” and "1 3" men at the required significance level* the trend within the male grouping was in the same direction as that of the women* When both the men and the women were combined* therefore* the Chi Square test barely achieved a P level of *05 end showed that the rehabilitated clients tended to have a high school education or better* Age discriminated significantly between the ”12" and "13" clients also* the frequencies showing that while there were more "12" men and women than expected of age 2 5 or under* and also more "12" clients than expected between the ages of 26 and 1|5* there were fewer beyond this level. It was interesting* however* that the women mad© the major contribution to the age group of 2 5 or under* and that the 112 men had a greater representation In the age group of 26 to !|5. In contrast* the "13” women made the largest contri bution to this latter age grouping aa compared to the n1 3n men* All items testing the significance of responses to vocational data shoved significant differences between the rehabilitated and the non-rehabllitated ollents at the *001 level (Table i * . 2). The rank order of sources of referral shoved that other individuals* the Department of Employment* and self- referrals occupied the first three rankings in that order for all the ”12” clients* while the Department of Employ ment and insurance agencies tied for first rank order among the ”13%* followed by the Bureau of Public Assist ance referrals* The largest portion of both groups of ollents listed families as their main source of financial support* This was followed by disability benefits and Unemployment Insuranoe for the rehabilitated clients* and by public agency income and disability pensions for the non-rehabilltated clients* Only 6 per cent of the rehabilitated clients were referred by the Bureau of Public Assistance* and only 10 per cent of them were supported by this agenoy* There was no difference between the first and second rank orders of disabilities for these two groups* TABLE 42 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN ALL PERSONS CLOSED IN STATUS "12* AND "13" Group Item* X* P Coefficient of Contingency I Personal-Social 8 Years of education ?•% .05 .15 Data 9 Age at application o*0o *05 .17 21 Time since last employment 4-31 .05 .16 28 Breaks in work history of one 9.39 *01 •31 Yates correction month or more 21 No response (Time since last 14*12 .001 *27 Yates correction employment 22 No response (DOT code of most 17.81 .001 •30 Yates correction recent job) III 23 Ho response (Length of most 25.51 •001 .35 Vocational Data recent job) 24 No response (DOT code of long 37.28 •001 .1*2 est job) 25 No response (Length of longest 36*03 .001 .14 j|00 / 2? No response (Number of 24.76 .001 .35 employers) 28 No response (Breaks in work 11*12 •001 .2b history of one month or more) *Mull hypotheses rejected for these items* in* Although the third rank order for the "12" ollents was held by persons vlth visual problems, In contrast to the cardlao problems of the "1 3" ollents who oooupled this position* Finally, there were no differences between the first three rank orders of the DOT code classifications for reoent and longest jobs, as these were recorded for both of these groups (Tables U . 3 mk-7 ) ♦ Summary In summary, the group differences which appeared Indicated these tendencies among the "1 2" clients: 1. The men and the women who completed their rehabilitation programs had at least a high sohool education* 2* The women had been disabled for work before the age of 25* 3* The men had been disabled for work during the prim® of their working years* If* Both the men and women had worked within the 12 months prior to the application to DVR* 5* The men had three breaks or less of on® month or more in their work histories, if they had had significant work experience* 6 * Both men and women had completed their employ ment records in such a way that the vocational 115 TABLE 1*3 (ITEM £) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison <"12"/"13" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "12” "13” ”12" "13” 1 2 3 I 7) 26 15 2 3 20 15 3 1 6 18 11* * 7 9 I 8) 11* 11 5 8 Ik li 6 k k) 1) 9 9 7 5 9 9 8 6 2 7 6 9 9 5 1 118 1 * 91* 1 Self 2 Other Individual 3 California Dept® of Etejp!oym®nt 4 Doctor 5 School o Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 116 TABLE kk (ITEM 6 ) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison (■1 2V 1 3" Male 8t Penal*) Rank Group Frequency ”1 2" "13" *1 2” "1 3" 1 1 1 56 32 2 6 fc 23 23 3 5 6 22 k if 5 12 11 5 3 3 11 $ 6 2 2 2 1 118 9lf 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 3 Wages or savings I j . Pub lie agency 5 Uhemp loyment Insurance 6 Workmen's Compensation 117 TABLE kS (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OF KINDS OF DISABILITIES Comparison <n12n/"13n Male & Female) Rank 12 12 28 12 11 10 10 118 1 Emotional *Impaired extremities ”12” = 2i| 2 Mental retardation ”13” - Ilf 3 Epilepsy if Cardiac 5 Baek impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment ♦Impaired extremities 118 TABLE I 4.6 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("12"/"13" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "1 2* "13" "1 2" "1 3" 1 6 6 36 22 2 5 5 19 12 3 3 3i 2) 15 10 if 2 13 1 0 5 1 7 8 8 6 7 1 if 2 7 If if 2 97 1 65 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service 4 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 a or 5 Skilled 0 6 or 7 Send.-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled 119 TABLE 1)7 (ITEM 2k) RAHK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF LONGEST JOB Comparison ("1 2"/"1 3" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "1 2" *13" "1 2" "13" 1 6 6 30 16 2 5 5 21) . 10 3 2 2) ) 1) 16 5 k 3 12 5 5 7) ) 7) ) 3 k 6 1 ) \ 3) 3 k 7 k 3 91 0 14 Professional Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 2 I 120 data utilised in this study eould be recorded. Again it is suggested that this behavior repre sented a commitment or a serious consideration of the vocational aspect of their lives which the non- rehabilltated clients did not exhibit. The Chi Square test of significant differences between the men and the women in terms of whether or not they had never worked or had insignificant work histories showed that fewer of the rehabilitated men than expected had never worked, although more of the rehabilitated women fell into this category. This, of course, is in line with the differences in the age levels of the men and women, and the difference in the ages at which they were disabled for work. Comparison of Status "12" and sfcaiua MS-y* cllenis Comparison of Women closed in stSrus""!?" a J l U T E u g In comparing the rehabilitated women with those for whom a plan could not be initiated before their oases were closed, only on© tested item discriminated signifi cantly between them. A© In the case of the previous comparisons, the rehabilitated women tended to have a high school education or better, while the non-rehabilitated women tended to have education backgrounds below this 121 level (Table 1 | . 8 ) . However* the nominal scale data shoved that while almost half of the "1 2" women had been referred by other Individuals or by themselves* exactly 5 > 0 per eent of the *lf>-U" women had been referred by the Bureau of Public Assistance or the Sheltered Workshops. Only one of the "1$-U" women had referred herself* and only one of the "1*>-TXW women had been referred by another individual (Table 1*9 )• In comparing the major sources of support for these two groups* it was found that there were no differences (Table £0* Appendix D). While there were equal numbers of rehabilitated women who were disabled by impaired extremi ties* by emotional problems* and by hearing difficulties* the non-rehabilitated women were disabled primarily by "other” impairments such as dental conditions* or arthri tis* followed by emotional problems. It will be recalled that the largest number of "12" women had DOT code classifications for their most recent Jobs at the service occupation levels. This was followed in rank order by cod® classifications in clerical and sales* and semi®skilled labor. The "l«>-TJn women* however* were characterised by a first rank order of their most recent jobs in clerical and sale®* followed by service occupations and semi-skilled labor. These codings TABLE i|8 FACTORS DISCRIMIMATING BETWEEN WOMEN CLOSED IN STATUS "12" AND "l£-U" Group Item# X2 p Coefficient of Contingency I Personal-Social Date 8 Years of education 5«oi •0 5 ♦30 «Noll hypothesis rejected for this Item. 123 TABLE 1+9 (ITEM £) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison (■»!2*/”15-Vn Female) Rank Group Frequency "1 2" "1 5-u" "1 2" "15-u" 1 2 6 8 6 2 1 9 6 5 3 5) ) 8) 8 5 i f i f 5) ) 3) £ 2 5 i f 3 2 6 6 1) 2 1 7 3> 9) 2 1 1 8 t 7) 1 1 9 7 i f O 1 rt 1 0 22 1 Self 2 Other individual 3 California Dept* of Employment I j . Doetor 5 School 6 Bureau of Publlo Assistance 7 Insurance ageney 8 Public or private ageney 9 Sheltered Workshop 1 2 1 ) . were reversed when considering the longest Jobs they had held, for the largest number of "1 2" women had worked at elerioal and sales jobs, and the largest number of "15-U" women at service occupations* It should be remembered, however, that the number of women in both categories for whom such codings oould be determined was rather small, and that these differences cannot, therefore, be considered as reliable (Tables 51-53)* Comparison of men closed in sfciftua *12^ and status n ^ U Chi Square tests between the men in these two status closures resulted in only one which achieved the significance level required* Item 28 (the number of breaks in the work history) showed that the men for whom no plan could be initiated tended to have had four or more breaks of one month or more in their work histories (Table )• An inspection of the sources of referral revealed that while 35 per cent of the ”1 2" men had been referred by themselves or by other Individuals, only 12 per cent of the "15-U" men in this group were so categorised, and that the major source of referral for the "15-U" men had been the insurance agencies, in contrast to the Department of Employment for the "12" men* There were no differences in the first two rank orderings of sources of financial 12$ TABLE 51 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison ("1 2"/"l£~U" Female; Rank Group Frequency "12" "15-u" "12" "15-TT" 1 9# 9* 11 9* 2 1) ) 8) 1 6 k 3 3) \ 6 2 U 3 3 2 5 k) ) 2 2 6 7) 8) 2 2 7 5 2 1 1 8 2) 6 ) 7) 6) 0 0 9 0 31 0 22 I 1 Emotional •S'lmpairad extremities "12" « 6 2 Mental retardation "15>-Un * l | > Epilepsy T5 Cardiac Back impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment 126 TABLE 52 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ( w 12V "15-u" Female) Group Frequency JCtftuK "12" "15-U" "12” "15-u" 1 3 2 8 7 2 2 3 k 5 3 6 6) t I 3 2 1 2 2 5 5 fi k 1) 1 0 6 k) 7) 0 0 7 0 18 0 16 0 Professional 1 Clerical and sales 2 Service 3 Agriculture and fishing k or 5 Skilled 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 8 or 9 Unskilled 127 TABLE 53 (ITEM 2^) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparison ("12V"15-Uw Female) Rank Group Frequency "12” "15-U” "12" "15-U" 1 2 3 8 6 2 3 2 6 k 3 1) \ 7) \ 2 2 u e] 6| 2 2 5 k\ 1 0 1 6 5] 0 0 7 7) ul 0 18 0 15 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service 4 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 u or 5 Skilled o 0 or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled TABLE FACTORS DISCRIMIHATING BETWEEN MEN CLOSED IN STATUS "12" AND "15-U" Group Item* X2 P Coefficient of Contengency III Vocational Data 28 Breaks in work history of one month or more 6 .1 6 CM O • •26 Yates correction *Nall hypothesis rejected for this item* 128 129 support for these two groups, but the third position for the "1 2" men was occupied by the category of Unemployment Insurance, in contrast to public agency funds for the "15-U" men (Tables £5 and 56). The disability groupings were quite similar in that the largest number of men in each of these groups had suffered back impairments* Second rank was held by those who had impaired extremities, followed by visual problems for the rehabilitated men, and while impaired extremities also ranked second for the non-rehabilitated group, cardiac difficulties ranked third. The DOT cod® classifications for recent and long est jobs resulted in identical first and second rank orderings for both groups* The largest number of men within both types of closure status had held jobs at the semi-skilled level* Second place was held by jobs at the skilled level (Tables 57~£9* Appendix D). In summary, the sex comparisons indicated that similarities between these two groups appeared to be greater than the differences, although education did discriminate between the women, and the breaks in work history between the men* The sources of referral also showed large differences between them* Comparison of all persons closed In statu' s"’ "IS* The Chi Square tests for the total groups of "12" 130 TABLE 55 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison Male) Rank Group Frequency ”12” "15-u" "12” "15-U" 1 3 7 19 15 2 2 3 18 12 3 7 I f 9 I f 1 8 12 8 5 8 6 9 6 6 k 1 6 5 7 6 2 5 2 8 5 5) ) 9) i f 1 9 9 0 8? 1 59 1 Self 2 Other individual 3 California Dept» of Employment 4 Dootor 5 School o Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 131 TABLE 56 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("12V"15-U" Male) Rank Group Frequency "12" "l£-U" "12" "15-U" 1 1 1 3lf 18 2 6 6 20 17 3 5 k U* 10 k 3 5 10 9 5 k 3 7 5 6 2 2 2 0 87 59 X Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 3 Wages or savings i j . Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance o Workmen's Compensation 132 and *l£-TTn clients resulted In only two items which had P levels of *0£ or better. Item 10 (the age at onset) indicated that more of the rehabilitated clients than expected had had congenital difficulties, and that more of them than expected also had had the onset of their disabil ity between the ages of 1 and 30. The "15-TJ" clients often suffered the onset of their disabilities at 31 o*» beyond. Item 28 revealed that the "15-TJ” clients tended to have four or more breaks of a month or more in their work histories. The F level of .01 for this difference approached the .001 level of confidence (Table 6o). Although most of the rehabilitated clients had been referred by either themselves, by others, or by the Department of Employment, the n15~Un clients shared only the Department of Employment as one of their three main sources of referral. Insurance agencies headed their list, while the Bureau of Public Assistance and other public or private agencies tied for third (Table 6l)• There were no major differences noted among the remaining comparisons. These showed that the family served as the major unit of financial support for both groups, but pensions and public funds held second place for the non-rehabllitated clients. The largest number of persons in each group was disabled by back impairments, and next by Impaired TABLE 60 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN ALL PERSONS CLOSED IN STATUS "12" AND "l^-U" Group Item# X2 P Coefficient of Contingency II Disability Data 10 Age at onset 8.97 .05 .22 III Vooational Data 26 Breaks in work history of one month or more 10.34 .01 .30 «Ntill hypotheses rejected for these items. 13l* TABLE 61 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison risvns-tf" Male & Female) Rank Gr<oup Frequency "1 2" "1 5-u" "1 2" "15-U" 1 2 7 26 16 2 3 3 20 11* 3 1 6) ) 8) 18 12 1* 7) si 11* 12 5 1* H* 9 6 *1 5) 1) ) 9) 9 6 7 9 6 8 6 5) \ 7 3 9 9 2I 1 118 3 81 1 Self 2 Other Individual California Dept* of Employment 1* Dootor 5 School o Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop extremities* The third rank order of rehabilitated persons* disabilities consisted of visual problems in contrast to the emotional problems of the non-rehabllitated group* Finally* although the largest number of individuals within each group had DOT codings at the semi-skilled level in both their most recent and longest jobs* the second rank order for the rehabilitated persons was occupied in each item by individuals at the skilled level* The second largest number of "15-TJ" persons had had DOT codings on their longest jobs in service occupations, and DOT codings of recent jobs in both service occupations end clerical and sales work (Tables 62-6f>, Appendix D)• Summary In summary* the similarities present among these Individuals appear to outweigh the differences* and yet the fact that the "1 5-TJ" individuals tended to be 31 or over at the onset of their disabilities* also tended to have four or more breaks In their work histories* and to be referred by different sources from the rehabilitated clients* appears to indicate the crucial significance of these factors* It was also Interesting that more of the "1 5-U" men and fewer of the Wl£-U" women than was to be expected had never worked* or had had insignificant work histories* Perhaps the prevalence of emotional problems 136 in this group had some relationship to these oiroumstanoes. Comparison of Status ”12” and Status "Ig-E” 61lenta Comparison of women closed In status wl2'* and status wl5-3St f Ttofortunately, the comparisons to be made between the rehabilitated women and those who had been olosed in status "15-E" were limited because there were only five women in the ”15"-Employed category, and in many instances the expected frequencies were too few to allow the test* Tables 66-71, Appendix D present the information available from these comparisons but it cannot be considered reliable for this reason. Comparison of men closed in status "Isl" and status W15-E” The Chi-Square tests for the men, however, revealed interesting differences between these two groups who re-entered the labor market, either with the help of DVR or on their own. More of the ”15" employed men had disabilities which were not observable than was to be expeoted, and had held their most recent jobs for 13 months or more* More of these men also gave an employment history which permitted the recording of the number of breaks than did the rehabilitated men (Table 72), There were no differences between the groups, TABLE 72 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN MEN CLOSED IN STATUS "12" AND "1£-E" Group Item* X2 P Coefficient of Contingency II Disability Data 13 Observable disability 748 .01 .23 III Vocational Data 23 Length of most recent job 28 No response (Breaks in work history of one month or more) 1 : 8 .0 1 .02 .2 5 .2 2 ♦Null hypotheses were rejected for these Items* 138 however, in the rank orderings of the major referral resources (Table 73, Appendix D), but the largest number of ”15>” employed men were supported by Unemployment Insurance in contrast to the family support given the rehabilitated male clients (Table 7I 4.K The largest number of men in both groups were disabled by back impairments and the next largest number by impaired extremities. There were no differences in the first two rank orderings of the DOT codings of their most recent or longest jobs, nor was there any significant difference between the number of men in these two groups who had never worked or had had inslgnifioant work histories (Tables 75-77* Appendix D), Comparison of all persons closed In s i a W r n ^ aUWs In considering all the olients within each of these status closures it was found that more of the olients who had returned to work on their own were men than was to be expected, and that there were more women who had been assisted by DVR in successfully completing their rehabili tation programs. The item of age also proved to have a significantly discriminating effect upon these two groups, for while there were fewer persons who returned to work on their own who were 25 or under, there were more individ uals (both male and female) in this closure status who 139 TABLE 71*. (ITEM 6 ) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("12 V nl5-Bn Male) Rank Group Frequency "12" "15-E" "1 2" "15-E" 1 1 5 3k 12 2 6 6 ) ) 1) 20 11 3 5 Ik 11 k 3 3 10 5 5 1* k 7 3 6 2 2 2 87 0 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 3 Wages or savings l j . Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance 6 Workmen's Compensation U+o wore if 6 or more. Moreover, more of the men end women who had returned to work on their own had disabilities whleh did not Impair their communication with others and which were not observable, in contrast to the persons who had been closed in status ”1 2” in these categories* It was also seen that more of the persons who had found employ ment by themselves had held their most recent jobs for 13 months or more when compared to the ”1 2" olients, and that more of the "1 5" employed olients than "12"s had completed their work histories in such a way that it was possible to record the number of breaks (Table 78)® There did not appear to be any great differences in the sources of referral for these two groups (Table 79* Appendix D), but a larger proportion of "15" employed clients were supported by Unemployment Insurance (Table 80). There were no differences in the first two rank orderings of disabilities, although the rehabilitated olients showed visual problems as ranking third, in contrast to the cardiac problems of the ”1 5" employed individuals (Table 81)» There were no major differences in the DOT codings of longest and most recent jobs (Tables 82 and 8 3, Appendix D). TABLE 78 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN ALL PERSONS CLOSED IN STATUS w12" AMD Group Item* X2 p C oefficient of Contingency I Personal-Soola l 1 Sex W H .05 .1 6 Data 9 Age at application o*99 •05 • 20 II 12 Impaired communication 4*10 .05 •15 D isa b ility Data 13 Observable d isa b ility 10*75 .01 *25 III 23 Length of most recent job 6.59 .02 .2 1 Voeational Data 28 N o response (Breaks in work history o f one month or more) 5.27 .05 .19 ♦Hull hypotheses rejected for these Items* £ H ill? TABUS 80 (ITEM 6 ) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison (»12V "15-E" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "12" "10-B" "12" "15-E" 1 1 5 56 1^ 2 6 1 23 13 3 5 6 1k 11 fc 3 12 5 5 3 If 11 * 6 2 2 2 0 118 f c - 7 1 Family or alimony 2 Frlonda or church Wagos or savings I j . Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance 6 Workmen’s Compensation TABLE 81 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison ("12 "/"15-E" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "1 2" "15-E" "1 2" "15-E" 1 9* 9*> 36 13 2 5 S 1 26 13 3 7 k 12 9 k 1 3 11 k * k 10 2 6 8 8) 6) 9 2 7 6 7 2 8 3 7) ) 2) 5 1 9 2 2 118 1 k7 1 Emotional «■ Impaired extremities "12” » 2lf 2 Mental retardation "15-E" = » __9 3 Epilepsy 33 If Cardiac 5 Baok Impairment o Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment Summary In summary, the differences which appeared to discriminate between these olients who returned to the labor market, either on their own or with the assistance of DVR, showed that the elient who seemed moat likely to find employment without assistance, was a man who, although 1*6 or older, had a disability which was not observable and whieh had not Impaired his communication with others. His most reeent Job was likely to have lasted 13 months or more, and he had completed his employment record in such detail that it was possible to determine the number of breaks in his work history of one month or more. In short, this type of elient would seem to approximate the older, experienced worker to be found in the open labor market. Perhaps beoause of this resemblance he is better able to secure employment on his own. CHAPTER VII COMPARISONS AMONG NON-REHABILITATED CLIENTS Comparisons of Status "13” and .. -ar. ■ g€^ -a-Hlgrir -^lT 5nt?---- Comparison of women closed In status W1YW and status "IS-tf”- Of the Chi Square tests which were made between the women who were not able to complete their vocational rehabilitation plans and those for whom a plan could not be Initiated, only those which distinguished between the women who responded and those who did not proved to have significance* Items 22, 23, 2lf, 25, 27, and 28 indicated that fewer of the women who had been closed In status "1 3” gave a response than might be expected. All differences were at the *01 level of confidence or better (Table 8 1 4.)* At least half of the women in both of these group ings, however, were referred by the Bureau of Public Assistance, or by Sheltered Workshops, and almost all of them were supported either by public agenoy funds or by their families* There were no major differences in their disability rankings, although the DOT code rankings of their recent jobs indicated that the "1 3" status women 1U5 TABLE 8I 4 . FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN WOMEN CLOSED IN STATUS "13" AND "15-TJ" Group Item# X2 P Coefficient of Contingency III Vocational Data 23 No response (Length of most reeent job) 2 l f . No response (DOT eode of longest job) 25 No response (Length of long est job) 27 No response (Number of employers) 26 No response (Breaks in work history of 1 month or more) 9*80 13*67 13*67 lif..ifl 34.10 .01 .001 •001 •001 .0 0 1 •ij . 6 Tates correction •52 Tates correction •52 Tates correction •53 Tates correction •53 Tates correction *Null hypotheses rejected for these items. litf tended to have had Jobs at the semi-skilled or service occupational levels, and that more of the ”15>" unemployed women had held clerical or sales jobs* The DOT code classifications for the longest jobs held, however, had too few numbers to give reliable information (Tables 8£- 89# Appendix D)* Comparison of men dosed in status "lr and status As in the oase of the women, the Chi Square tests which discriminated at a significant level between the men in the w1 3” and "1 5” unemployed groups, were those which were concerned with the adequacy of the data contained in the employment records* Five items (number® £2, 2li, 25* 27, and 28) showed Chi Squares at the P level of *05 or better for these comparisons* In eaoh instance, the ”1 3” men tended to record information inadequately (Table 90 )• There did not appear to be any major differences in the sources of referral or support between these groups of men, nor in the rank ordering® of their disabilities, or the DOT codings of their most recent or longest jobs (Tables 91-95* Appendix D)• Comparison of all persons closed in status m* asrl^s^^tr— Again, in comparing the total groups of both of these kinds of clients, the Chi Square testa which showed TABLE 90 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN MEN CLOSED IN STATUS *13" AND "15-TJ" Group Item* X2 P Coefficient of Contingency III Vocational Data 22 No response (DOT code of most recent Job) 2l+ No response (DOT code of longest job) 25 No response (Length of long est Job) 27 No response (Number of employers) 28 No response (Breaks in work history of one month or more) 1+40 16*51+ 17.36 1 0* 1+ 9 7.17 .05 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 1 .0 1 *19 Yates correction •36 Yates correction .37 .29 .25 ♦Null hypotheses rejected for these Items* £ OB 11*9 significant differences wore once more those whioh con cerned the adequacy of the Information obtained on the employment records. All these items (numbers 21 through 28, exoept for 26) showed Chi Squares at the P level of •02 or better (Table 9&)« There were no major differences in the sources of referral for these individuals* nor the sources of support. The rank orderings of their disabilities and the DOT codings of their most recent Jobs were also similar* although the second rank DOT code of the longest Jobs held by the "1 5w unemployed olients proved to be that for service occupations in contrast to the skilled level second order ranking of the ”1 3” olients• There was no significant difference between the numbers of "1 3" and "15" unemployed clients who had never worked* or had had insignificant work histories (Tables 97*101* Appendix D). Siinmun«y The only characteristic observed in this research whioh discriminated between those clients who were dosed as non-rehabilltated before their vocational "plans" were completed and those who were closed without having entered into a specific plan might be described as the commitment to work. The lack of this quality was Inferred from the Inadequate vocational histories presented by the "1 3" olients in their employment records* That this inferred TABLE 96 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN ALL PERSONS CLOSED IN STATUS "13" AND "15-U" Group Item* X2 p Coefficient of Contingency HI- Vocational Data 21 No response (Time since last employment) 22 No response (DOT code of most recent job) 23 No response (Length of most recent job) 2 1 4- No response (DOT code of longest Job) 25 No response (Length of long est job) 27 No response (Number of employers) 28 No response (Breaks in work history of one month or more) 6.53 9 .0 2 i4*37 3 2 .0 6 3 1 .0 2 2 4 .0 8 1 8 .5 2 .0 2 .0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .21 Yates correction •24 Yates correction .29 .42 •42 •38 •33 *Null hypotheses rejected for these Items* 151 "disinterest" In work Is more common among those clients who actually entered into a vocational plan appears at first glanoe to be paradoxical* However, Turner (80) has suggested a possible explanation which will be discussed later* Comparison of Status "11" and ^aUftTs "CTIenca--- Comparison of women closed in status wll" and siatua *15-1* Unfortunately, it was not possible to run Chi Square tests between the "13" and "l£" employed women, inasmuch as there were too few expected frequencies in each of the tables* It will be recalled, however, that the Bureau of Public Assistance ranked first as a source of referral for the "1 3" women, and that Sheltered Work shops ranked second* In contrast, three of the five employed women had referred themselves* It may also be recalled that the largest number of "1 3” women had been supported by public agencies (the Bureau of Public Assistance or State Mental Hygiene), whereas two of the five "1 5” employed women olaimed Unemployment Insurance as their major source of financial support, and two the family* "Other impairment©" and ©motional problems shared the first rank order of disabilities for the "1 3n women, 152 whereas two of the "15* employed women had impaired extremities, which gave this disability first order ranking for them* There were no differences in the DOT codes of reeent Jobs, while the numbers of women for whom DOT code classifications for the longest job could be made was too small to be of use (Tables 102-107, Appendix D). Comparison of men closed In stSus- m ^ r s t k t u s 'n ^E" The comparisons of the men in these two groups, however, yielded six Chi Squares significant at the *05 level or better. In addition to this, five of the "no response" comparisons proved to be significant* More of the "15” employed men had two or more dependents than expected, while fewer of them had one or even no dependents* Item 7 also proved to be a discrimi nating factor, for fewer of the "15” employed men had had one or more previous applications, while more of the "1 3" men than expected had made prior contact with DVR. More of the "1 5” employed men had a non-observable disability, and/or a device which did not limit their mobility* In addition, more of the "1 5” employed men than was to be expected had held their most recent jobs a year or more, in comparison to the "13" men* They also tended to have had three or less breaks of a month or more in their work histories* 153 Responses to items 23* 2lf., 25, 27, end 28 also were given a significantly greater number of times by the ”15" employed men than was to be expected, Three of these P levels were at the ,001 level or better (Table 108), Five times as many "13" men as compared to the "15-E" men were referred by the Bureau of Public Assist ance (Table 109)* There were no major differences in the rankings of the major sources of financial support, in the disability rankings, or in the DOT code classifications of recent and longest job rankings (Tables 110-113, Appendix D), Comparison of all persons closed In status *'llw and status 15-lP In comparing the two groups of men and women, sex proved to be a discriminating factor, There were more "15" men who became employed than expected and fewer women. The "15” employed persons tended to have two or more dependents and non-observable disabilities. As a group, the "1 5” employed persons had held their most recent jobs for 13 months or more, and also tended to have three or fewer breaks in their work histories. The "no response” Items again indicated signifi cant differences between these two groups. All of these comparisons had P level values of ,0 1 or better (Table lllf). Finally, it was found that more of the ”1 3” men than TABLE 108 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN MEN CLOSED IN STATUS "13" AND "15-E" Group Per sonal-Soc & a! Data II Disability Data III Vocational Data Item* X2 p Coefficient of Contingency i| Dependents 9 .9 6 .0 1 • 20 7 Previous application 3.9U .0 5 .18 Yates correction 13 Observable disability 5 .0 5 .0 5 .21 Yates correction 19 Activity (needs device) 3 .9 5 .0 5 •19 Yates correction 23 Length of most recent job 6 .6 1 .0 2 .2 6 28 Breaks in work history of 7 .6 7 .01 .33 Yates correction one month or more 23 No response (Length of most 14-.15 .05 •19 Yates correction recent Job) 2 i { . No response (DOT code of 1 3 4 7 .001 •3^ Yates correction longest job) 25 No response (Length of long 1 7 .3 2 .001 •38 Yates correction est job) 27 No response (Number of 7 .1 0 •01 •26 Yates oorreotlon employers) 28 No response (Breaks in work 1 6 .8 3 .001 t o t * \ • history of one month or more) *Null hypotheses rejected for these items. 1& TABLE 109 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP REFERRAL Comparison ("13V"l£-B" Male) Rank Group Frequency ”13" "15-E" "1 3" "1£-E" 1 3 Hf Hf 2 7) 7) ) 2) Ilf 7 3 8 10 7 If If If 7 5 $ 1) \ 1 6 3 6 2I 8) ) 6 2 7 6) ) 9) 9) 5 2 8 6) ) 5 1 9 5 5) 3 70 1 lf2 1 Self 2 Other Individual 3 California Dept« of Employment 4 Doctor 5 School o Bureau of Publio Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop TABLE 111* FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN ALL PERSONS CLOSED IN STATUS ”13” AND "1$-En Group Item# X2 P Coefficient of Contingency I Personal-Social 1 Sex M 3 .05 .1 8 Data i j . Dependents 7 .0 1 .05 •22 II 13 Observable disability 4.50 .05 .18 Yates correction Disability Data 23 Length of most reeent job Sell .0 1 .2 8 28 Breaks in work history of 1 0 .8 6 •001 .3 8 Yates correction one month or more 21 No response (Time since last 7.36 .0 1 • 2i* Yates correction employment) 22 No response (DOT code of 7 .0 8 .0 1 .23 Yates correction most recent job) 23 No response (Length of most 1 3 .2 0 .0 0 1 •31 III recent job) Vocational Data 2 i | . No response (DOT eode of 2 3 .6 2 .0 0 1 •39 longest job) 25 No response (Length of long 28.1*9 .0 0 1 •l»3 est job) 27 No response (Number of 1 6 .2 5 .0 0 1 *3k employers) 28 No response (Breaks in work 2 3 .2 9 .001 •39 history of one month or more) *Nall hypotheses rejected for these items* 157 expected had never worked, and that all of the "1 5" employed men had significant work histories (Table l£6)» In oontrastp it was found that while almost one- fourth of the "1 3" clients had been referred by public agencies or Sheltered Workshops* less than one-tenth of the "1 5" employed clients had been referred by this source* Moreover* almost one-fourth of the ”1 3” clients had been supported by public agency funds, although this was true of less than one-tenth of those clients who returned to work on their own (Tables 115 116), A comparison of the disability rank orders showed no major differences, nor were there major differences in the DOT codings of their recent jobs* The DOT codings for longest jobs showed no major differences in their rankings (Tables 117-119» Appendix D)« Simmiftpy In summary, these findings could be Interpreted as indicating that the "15” employed client is more like the client closed as rehabilitated than he is like the client who does not complete his vocational plan* It is of particular Interest that the commitment to work is clearly noted among the clients who, though not considered as rehabilitated, returned to work on their own* This commitment Is apparent from the care with which they completed their employment records and from the fact that 158 TABLE 115 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP REFERRAL Compari son ("13V"15-E" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "13” "15-E" "13” "15-E" 1 3 15 it 2 7) 7) ) 15 7 3 6 2) it 7 k 8) ) 1 11 • s . 6 5 9) 4 11 5 6 1) k) 6) ) 9 2 7 9 2 8 2 8) ) 6 2 9 5 9) k 9k 2 t7 1 S e lf 2 Other Individual 3 California Dept* of Employment k Doctor 5 Sohool 6 Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 159 TABLE 116 (ITEM 6 ) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Group Comparison (»13V”1£-b” Male & Female) Rank 1£-E 11 22 11 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church % Wages or savings 4 Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance 6 Workmen's Compensation l6o all of the men closed as "15" employed had significant work histories and less than four breaks in their employ ment records* Comparison of Status "15-U" and ------ Comparison of women closed in status' irT5-bw' and Vtaius As in the oase of the ”13" and ”15” employed women, there were too few expected frequencies in the comparisons of the unemployed and the employed "1 5” women to be of use* It can be seen from Table 121, however, that exactly 50 per cent of the unemployed "15” women were referred by public agencies and/or Sheltered Workshops, while three of the five employed women had referred them selves* Forty-one per cent of the unemployed women were supported by public agencies (Bureau of Public Assistance or State Mental Hygiene) while only one of the employed women was thus categorised (Tables 120-125, Appendix D)• Comparison of men closed in sTOus^TC-tf1 * ' aST Hat’ us" " " T 5-E" There were only three factors which distinguished the "15" unemployed men from the "15" employed men* These were: (1) previous application, (2) observable as opposed to non-observable disabilities, and (3) number of breaks in the work record (Table 126)* TABLE 126 FACTORS DISCRIMIHATING BETWEEN MEN CLOSED IN STATUS "15-U" and "15-E" Group Item* X2 p Coefficient of Contingency I Per sonal-Social Data 7 Previous application 3 .9 9 .0 5 •19 Yates correction II Disability Data 13 Observable disability s.3 9 .05 .22 Yates correction III Vocational Data 28 Breaks in work history of one month or more 1^75 .0 5 •25 Yates correction ♦Null hypotheses rejected for these Items. 162 Almost one-fourth of the employed men had been referred by themselves or by other Individuals as compared to little more than 10 per cent of the unemployed men (Table 127). There were no major differences In disability ranking8, In DOT codings of recent jobs nor longest jobs (Tables 128-131, Appendix D)« Comparison of all persons closed In status' ^-ttw a&T sfcaiua The total group comparisons revealed that sex, observable disability, devices limiting mobility, length of the most recent job, and breaks in work history distinguished significantly between these groups (Table 132), A much larger proportion of employed persons was referred by themselves or by other Individuals. Con versely, a larger proportion of the unemployed persons was referred by Sheltered Workshops or the Bureau of Public Assistance (Table 133)• The largest number of employed persons was supported by unemployment Insurance, although the major source of support for those who were unemployed proved to be the family (Table 13^). The final comparison Indicated that all of the "1 5" employed men had significant work histories, In contrast to the wl£>" unemployed men of whom 163 TABLE 127 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison (B15-Un/**15-E" Male) Rank Group Frequency "15-U" "1£-E" "15-TJ" "1£-E" 1 7 3 15 Ik 2 3 2) 12 7 ) 3 k 7) 9 7 k 8 1* 8 5 5 6 1 6 3 6 1 8) 5 2 ) 7 2 9) 2 2 8 5) 5) 1 1 ) ) 9 9) 6) 1 1 59 I f . 2 1 Self 2 Other individual 3 California Dept* of Employment . . . . 4 Doctor 5 Sehool o Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop TABLE 132 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN ALL PERSONS CLOSED IN STATUS "15-E" AND "lS-TJ1 1 Group Item* X2 P Coefficient of Contingency I Personal-Social Data II Disability Data III Vocational Data 1 Sex 13 Observable disability 1§ Activity (needs advice) 23 Length of most recent job 2o Breaks in work history of one month or more S.oi* k.9i 3.67 3.91* 7 .8 0 .05 .05 *0$ •05 .0 1 .19 •19 Yates correction .17 Yates correction .1 8 .29 Yates correction *Null hypotheses rejected for these items. 165 TABLE 133 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison (nl5-U"/"l5-E" Male & Female) Group Frequency flBLU M , "15-U" "15-E" ”15-Un "15-E" 1 7 ‘ 3 16 ilf 2 3 2) ) 7) Hf 7 3 6) ) 8) 12 7 If 1 12 6 5 u u 9 5 6 1) 5> 9 6 2 7 9 I 6 2 8 2) 8 I 3 2 9 / 6) 3 81 2 lf7 1 Self 2 Other individual 3 California Dept* of Employment I j . Doe tor 5 Sehool 6 Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 166 TABLE I3I 4. (ITEM 6 ) HAKE ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FIMAWCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("15-U"/"15-B" Male & Female) Group Frequency nSPK «15_U" "15-E“ "15-U" "15-B" 1 1 5 29 2 6) 1 19 13 3 6 19 11 5 3 9 5 5 3 5 If 6 2 2 0 81 0 if7 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 3 Wages or savings \ Public ageney 5 Unemployment Insurance o Workmen's Compensation 167 there vere more than expected who had never vorked (Table 1£6). No other Item comparisons appeared to show major differences (Tables 135*137* Appendix D). Summary As in the case of the previous comparison of nl£>n employed and "1 3” clients* these findings appeared to indicate that those mho returned to work on their own were more like the rehabilitated client than those for whom no vocational plan was initiated* Furthermore* the commit ment to work as it seems to have been expressed through the care with which employment records were completed* the number of breaks in the employment reoords* as well as the length of the most recent jobs was again a distinguishing characteristic• CHAPTER VIII COMPARISONS OF ALL EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED CLIENTS AND COUNSELOR OPINIONS VERSUS EMPIRICAL FINDINGS d with Comparison of Employed Unemployed ci 1 enta Comparison of women olosed in status and status "1^5* to women closed in status lflln A final study was made which combined all of the persons who had returned to work* either on their own or with the help of DVR* and all of those persons who had not been employed at closure. In this situation* It was discovered that a significantly greater number of the employed women had had congenital conditions and that a slightly larger group than expected of these employed women had been l j .1 years of age or more at onset of their disabilities (Table 1 3 8)* Related to this finding was the fact that more of the unemployed women had had accidents* and that twice as many of the employed women had hearing disabilities. The major referral resources for the employed 168 TABLE 138 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN WOMEN CLOSED IN STATUS "12" AND "15-E" AS COMPARED TO STATUS "13" AND "1$-U" Group Item# X2 P Coefficient of Contingency II Disability Data 10 Age at onset of disability 1 4 Origin of disability (A) lO.Olf 947 .0 2 .0 1 •33 •32 *Null hypotheses rejected for these items* 170 women had been themselves* other individuals* and the schools* For those women who were unemployed* the major referral resources proved to be the Bureau of Public Assistance, the Sheltered Workshops and other public or private agencies (Table 139)* The primary source of support for the employed women was the family* Two-thirds of them fell into this category* On the other hand* almost 50 per cent of the unemployed women had been supported by either the Bureau of Public Assistance or State Mental Hygiene funds (Table llj.0) • There were no major differenoes in the DOT codings of their recent and longest jobs (Tables Xlpl—Xif-3, Appendix D)» Comparison of men closed in status ”12" and status to men closed in status ana status"w1 The factors which distinguished the employed from the unemployed men included the number of dependents (the employed men tended to have two or more dependents); previous applications (the unemployed men had more often made previous applications to DVR); and the age at which they were disabled for work (more of the employed men were disabled between the ages of 21 and i+5* and fewer over this age)* Fewer of the employed men needed a device or others for mobility* and fewer of them had observable 171 TABLE 139 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison ("12" & "l^-E"/ "13" & "15-U" Female) Rank Group Frequency 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-^ 12 & 15-E 13 & lS-u 1 1 6 9 i£ 2 2 9 8 11 3 5 8 6 5 k 8 1 5 * S k) 3) 3 3 6 6) 5) 3 3 7 3) 4> 1 2 ) ) 8 9) 7) 1 2 9 7 2 0 1 36 46 1 Self 2 Other Individual 3 California Dept« of Employment I ) . Doctor 5 Sohool o Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance Agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 172 TABUS lifO (ITEM 6) BANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison "12" f l e "15-E"/ Rank Group Frequency "13" & "15-u" Female) 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-u 12 & 15>-E 13 & 15-u 1 1 k 2k 22 2 k l 6 19 3 6 6 3 k 5 3 2 1 5 3 5I 2) 1 0 6 2 0 36 0 hf> 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church Wages or sayings Public agency Unemployment Insurance Workmen's Compensation I 173 devices* Moreover, more of the employed men had vorked within the last year and had three breaks or less In their work histories (Table lljlj,)* Almost twice as many of the unemployed men had been referred by the Bureau of Public Assistance while the employed men had referred themselves or been referred by other Individuals in approximately the same proportion (Table llf$). It was interesting that although both groups claimed their families as the major source of financial support, only ten of the employed men were supported by public agencies, in contrast to 20 of the unemployed men* One and one-half times as many employed men were supported by wages or savings at the time of their applications, as compared to those men who were closed unemployed (Table l i | £ > ) . There were no major differences in the rankings of the disabilities nor of the DOT codings of recent and longest jobs (Tables II 4. 7-II4. 9* Appendix D) • Comparison of all persons closed in status ^1 2* * and status to all persons closed In status ni" and--- status - The final comparisons which included all the employed clients and all those unemployed, revealed that the number of dependents, the level of education, the ability to get around without others (or with a device TABLE ltt FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN MEN CLOSED IN STATUS "12" AND "15-E" AS COMPARED TO STATUS "13" AND "l^-U" Group Item* X2 P Coefficient of Contingency I Personal-Social Data t Dependents 7 Previous application 8.7t 6*06 .02 .02 .18 .15 II Disability Data 18 Age disabled for work 19 Activity (needs device) 20 Observable devioe 5:2f 7.89 .05 .0£ .02 .1 6 .13 .17 III Vocational Data 21 Time since last employment 28 Breaks in work history of one month or more k*t5 16*22 .05 .001 •It •31 *Null hypotheses rejected far these items* 175 TABLE lii£ (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison ("12" & "15-E"/ Group Frequency "13" & "15-u" Male) ntUUC 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-u 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-U i 3 7 33 29 2 2 3 25 26 3 7 8 21 18 1 U 15 16 5 4)> 1) ) 11 11 6 8) 6) 11 11 7 6 2 6 8 8 5 9 5 6 9 9 5 2 129 k 129 1 Self 2 Other Individual % California Dept* of Employment 4 Doctor 5 School 6 Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 176 TABLE 146 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("12" & "15-En/ Group Frequency "13” & "15-U” Vale) ItnuA 12 8 c 15-E 13 & l£-U 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-U l 1 1 W i f . 2 2 6 6 31 37 3 5 5I lv) 26 20 4 3 15 20 $ k 3 10 9 6 2 2 2 129 1 129 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 3 Wages or savings 4 Public ageney 5 Unemployment Insurance o Workmen's Compensation 177 which did not limit mobility), employment within the last year, and three breaks or less In work history were all factors which discriminated between these groups of clients (Table l£0). Thirty-five per cent of the employed persons had referred themselves or been referred by other individuals in contrast to 13 per cent of the unemployed persons. Moreover, 25 per cent of the unemployed clients had been referred by the Bureau of Public Assistance or by Sheltered Workshops in contrast to 7 per cent of the employed clients who had been sent by these agencies (Table 151) • Almost 2^ per cent of the unemployed clients had been supported by the Bureau of Public Assistance, as compared to only 10 per cent of the employed clients who had been thus supported (Table 152), There were no major differences in disability rankings nor in DOT codings of recent or longest jobs (Tables 153-155* Appendix D)• One last comparison, how ever, proved to have significance at a P level of *05 which approached the P level of ,02, Fewer than expected of the employed men had never worked, although the converse was true of the employed women (Table 15&)• Summary The factors which distinguished between the rehabilitated clients and those who were not rehabilitated TABLE 1^0 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN ALL PERSONS CLOSED IN STATUS ”12" AND "15-E" AS COMPARED TO STATUS "13” AND "1$-U" Group Item* X2 P Coefficient of Contingency I Personal-Soc ial Data I4 . Dependents 8 Years of education 6.81 4*83 •0£ •OS .14 .12 II Disability Data 19 Activity (needs device) 5.56 .02 .12 III Vocational Data 21 Time since last employment 28 Breaks in work history of one month or more 6.75 18.95 .01 .001 •IS .31 *Null hypotheses rejected for these Items 179 TABLE 151 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison ("12" & "15-E"/ Rank Group Frequency "1 3" & "15-u" Male & Female) 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-U 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-u 1 3 7 3k 31 2 2 3 33 29 3 1 6 2k 26 k 7 8 21 23 5 8 k 16 18 6 k 9 ik 17 7 5 1 11 15 8 6 2 9 , 9 9 9 5 3 165 7 175 1 Saif 2 Other Individual % California Dept* of Employment k Dootor 5 School o Bureau of Publio Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Publio or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 160 TABLE 1^2 (ITEM 6 ) RAHK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("1 2" & "15-B"/ Rank Group Frequency "13" & "15-U" Male & Female) 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-U 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-U 1 1 1 6 9 61 2 6 4 34 42 3 5 6 28 41 4 fl 4) 5 16 20 5 3 16 10 6 2 2 2 165 1 175 1 Family or alimony 2 Frlands or church 3 Wages or savings 4 Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance o Workmen*8 Compensation TABLE 1^6 CHI SQUARE TESTS COMPARING NUMBERS OP PERSONS WHO HAD NEVER WORKED OR HAD INSIGNIFICANT WORK HISTORIES WITHIN DIFFERENT CLOSURE GROUPS Comparison X2 P Contingency Coefficient " 12V" 13W Male /Female 5*03# *05 •23 Yates correction "12”/”1£-U" Male/Female 3*81^ .05 .2 0 "12w/f , l5-E” Male/Female N S "1 3 7 "1$-U" Male/Female N S nl3n/”l$-En Male/Female 8*t3* *01 *36 Yates correction "15-Ub/w15-E" Male/Female 8. 38* *01 •36 Yates correction ”12”* ”l5-E”/"13”f ”15-u" Male/Female 5.25* • 05 .2 0 tfNull hypotheses were rejected for these comparisons* 181 182 (excluding those who returned to work on their own) are presented In Tables 157* 15®* and 159* Table 157 shows the Items which discriminated between the rehabilitated and the non-rehabilitated women* Tables 156 and 159 list the items which were significant in the male and group oomparlsons* Frequency distributions of all Chi Squares which differentiated at a significant level between the sexes* among the women, among the men, and among the total groups of clients were also calculated* Tables l6o-l61f present these frequencies* Inspection of these tables indicates that exoept for the sex comparison, failure to respond on the employ ment record in such a way that the vocational data could be gathered proved to be the single most discriminating factor among the employed and unemployed groups* It can also be seen from these tables and from Tables 1 3 8, lJjif, and 156 that those factors which differentiated the employed from the unemployed women were quite different from those factors which discriminated between the employed and the unemployed men* Comparison of Empirical Findings with Counselor bankings Procedure Prior to the running of the Chi Square tests, an TABLE 157 FACTORS DISTINGUISHING REHABILITATED FROM NON-REHABILITATED WOMEN Group Comparison Item X2 P Coefficient of Contingency I Personal-Social n12f l /"13" 8 Years of education 4 .8 2 .05 .2 8 Data 21 No response (Time since last 7.82 .0 1 .42 Y* employment) 22 No response (DOT code of most 7.82 .0 1 .42 Y recent job) 23 No response (Length of most H.93 .0 0 1 .53 Y recent job) III 2lf No response (DOT code of 19.42 .0 0 1 .58 Y Vocational Data longest job) 25 No response (Length of long 19.42 .0 0 1 .58 Y est job) 27 No response (Number of 9.10 .0 1 •44 employers) 28 No response (Breaks in work 9.65 .0 1 history of one month or more) I Personal-Social n12"/nl5-U" 8 Years of education 5.01 .0 5 .30 Data #Yates correction TABLE 1^8 FACTORS DISTINGUISHING REHABILITATED FROM NON-REHABILITATED MEN Group Comparison Item X2 p Coefficient of Contingency II Disability Data n12"/"13" 18 Age disabled for work 6.19 .0 5 .19 21 Time since last employment 6*°3 •02 .2 1 28 Breaks in work history of 6.94 .0 1 .2 9 Y* one month or more k*3$ 22 No response (DOT code of most .0 5 .17 Y recent job) 940 23 No response (Length of most .0 1 .25 Y 2k recent job) III No response (DOT cod® of 15.11 .001 •31 Y Vocational Data longest job) 1 4 .3 0 25 No response (Length of long .0 0 1 .31 Y est job) CO OJ • 27 No response (Number of 11.93 • 001 employers) 4 .2 6 28 No response (Breaks in work history of one month or more) .0 5 • 17 Y III "12"/"15-Un 28 Breaks in work history of 6 .1 6 •02 .26 Y Vocational Data one month or more «Yates correction TABLE 159 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING AT A SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BETWEEN REHABILITATED AND MOS-REHABILTTATB3 GROCES Group Comparison Item X2 P Coefficient of Contingency I Personal-Social Data n12°/nl3n 8 9 Education Age at application 3.8k 6*06 .05 .05 .15 .17 in Vocational Data 21 28 21 22 23 2k 25 27 28 Time since last employment Breaks in work history of one month or more No response (Time since last employ ment) No response (DOT code of most recent Job) Ho roepoiisa (Length of most recent job) No response (DOT code of longest job) No response (Length of longest job) No response (Number of employers) No response (Breaks in work history of am month or more) k.31 9.39 lk.12 17*81 25*51 37*28 36.03 2k *76 11*12 .05 .01 •001 .001 .001 .001 •001 •001 •001 .16 .31 X* .27 X .30 X .35 •k 2 •kl .35 • 2k n Disability Data n l 2n /a l S - \ P 10 Age at onset 8*97 .05 .22 III Vocational Data 28 Breaks in work history of one month or more 10.3k •01 .30 ■frXatee correction* 186 TABLE 160 FREQUENCIES OF ITEMS WHICH SHOWED SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALL MEN AND WOMEN IN THE SAMPLE Item Frequency J J Marital status 3 k Dependents .......... 2 8 Education 1 9 Age 1 11 Years since onset 1 12 Impaired communication ••••••••.• 1 lk Origin of disability (A) 1 16 Impaired intell* processes................ .. ♦ 1 17 Origin of disability (B) 1 18 Age disabled for work 1 21 Time since last employment...................... 1 23 Length of most recent job ........... 1 25 Length of longest Job 1 187 TABLE l6l FREQUENCIES OF ITEMS WHICH SHOWED SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN IN EACH OF THE SEVEN INTER-GROUP COMPARISONS Item Frequency 8 Education 2 10 Age at onset 1 l4 Origin of disability (A) 1 21 No response (Time since ..................... 1 last employment 22 No response (DOT code of ..................... 1 most recent job 23 No response (Length of ..................... 2 most recent job) 2lj. No response (DOT code of ................. 2 longest job) 25 Wo response (Length of ..................... 2 longest job) 27 No response (Number of ............... 2 employers) 28 No response (Breaks in ............ . . . 2 work history of one month or more) 188 TABLE 162 FREQUENCIES OF ITEMS WHICH SHOWED SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN IN EACH OF THE SEVEN INTER-GROUP COMPARISONS Item Frequency l j . Dependents 7 Previous application 13 Observable disability lb Age disabled for work 19 Activity (needs device) 20 Observable device 21 Time since last employment 23 Length of most recent job 28 Breaks in work history of one month or more 5 22 No response (DOT code of most recent job) 2 23 No response (Length of most recent job) 2 2) 4. No response (DOT code of longest job) 3 25 No response (Length of longest job) 3 27 No response (Number of employers) 3 28 No response (Breaks in work history of one month or more) •••••••••• r v ) r v i H f \ > r o v * > u > r u 189 TABLE 163 FREQUENCIES OF ITEMS WHICH SHOWED SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS IN EACH OF THE SEVEN INTER-GROUP COMPARISONS Item Frequency 1 Sex k Dependents 8 Education 9 Age 10 Age at onset 12 Impaired communication 13 Observable disability 19 Activity (needs device) 21 Time since last employment 23 Length of most recent Job 28 Breaks in work history of one month or more •••••••••• 5 21 No response (Time since last employment) 3 22 No response (DOT code of most recent Job) 3 23 No response (Length of most recent Job) . . 3 2I 4. No response (DOT cod® of longest Job) 3 25 No response (Length of longest Job) 3 27 No response (Number of employers) 3 28 No response (Breaks in work history of one month or more) k ( \ ) fMKjJ H H W M (\)Ui 190 TABLE l6lf FREQUENCIES OF ITEMS WHICH SHOWED SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN ALL TWENTY-ONE COMPARISONS Item 1 Sex I j . Dependents 7 Previous application 8 Education 9 Age 10 Age at onset 12 Impaired communication 13 Observable disability Ik Origin of disability (A) 18 Age disabled for work 19 Activity (needs device) 20 Observable device 21 Time since last employment 23 Length of most reoent job 28 Breaks in work history of one month or more 21 No response (Time since last employment ) If 22 No response (DOT code of most reoent job) 6 23 No response (Length of most reoent job) • • 7 2lf No response (DOT code of longest job) 8 25 No response (Length of longest job) 8 27 No response (Nhmber of employers) «••••••••• 8 28 No response (Breaks in work history of one month or more) 10 Frequency I 1 2 2 1 6 1 2 k 1 10 191 effort was made to obtain a rough estimate of the counsel ors 1 opinions of the rank order Importance of the baslo personal data items whloh were to be used In the study* Twenty-two baslo items were presented to those counselors in the district whose oases were represented in the sample, and to their supervisors and the Vocational Psychologist (15 in all). They were asked to rank them within the different data groupings (personal-social, disability, and vocational), and to also rank the three groups. Fortu nately, all persons who had been involved with the clients in the sample were still with the agency, and all but one cooperated in the ranking problem. Appendix E shows the problem as it was presented to the rehabilitation personnel* Findings Table 165 presents the results of these rankings in terms of the "true" order, as it was established by the Kendall coefficients of concordance and by the order of the sums of ranks* The coefficients (with the P levels) for each of the three groups of data and the combined groups are given in Table 1 6 6. Agreement A comparison of these "true" rankings with the data presented in Table 159 gives a very crude estimate of TABES 165 "TRUE" RANKS AS ESTABLISHED BY KENDALL'S COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE Personal-Social Data Disability Data Vocational Data Total Rank Item Rank Item Rank Item Rank Group 1 Age of applicant 1 Kind of disability 1 Time since last 1 Vocational 2 Education 2 Age disabled for work employment Data 3 No. of dependents 3 Years since onset 2 No. of breaks 2 Personal- k Major source of U Age at onset 3 No. of employers Social Data support 5 Activity k.$ Most recent job 3 Disability 5 Marital status 6 Origin of disability level Data 6 Scare® of referral Length of longest 7 No. of previous work applications 6 Level of longest job 8 Sex 7 Length of most reoent 9 Race Job v£> r v j TABLE 166 COEFFICIENTS OF CONCORDANCE AND P LEVELS FOR COUNSELOR RANKINGS OF PERSONAL DATA ITEMS AND GROUPS Personal-Social Item Ranks Disability Item Ranks Vocational Item Ranks Group Ranks w .321* .276 CD CM . .303 s 38ll*.Ol* 976. 1 3 3 8 .5 2 13l* X2 3 6 .2 9 P .0 0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 N (Items) 9 6 7 3 Number of persons ranking = 1$, 19k the correspondence between the counselors1 rankings and the Importance of the Items as they were determined in this research* It can be seen that the counselors ranked age and education at the top of the Personal-*Social data group, and gave similar aooord to the Vocational Bata items of time since last employment, and breaks in work history. All four of these items discriminated between the rehabil itated and the unemployed clients. The counselors also ranked Vocational Data in first place when considering all three of the sub-categories of Information, and again, the importance of this information is supported by the numbers of significant Chi Squares recorded. The Disability rankings of the counselors were the only ones which appeared to be "out of line" with the obtained data, since the counselors gave only fourth place to age at onset. Summary In summary, it would appear that for the most part, the consensus orderings of these counselors give precedence to items which by statistical treatment were determined to have a significant relationship to rehabilitation. The rank orderings given by any individual counselor may have varied considerably, of course, from those established by the group as a whole. CHAPTER IX VALIDATION OP THE FINDINGS It will be recalled that in addition to the null hypotheses presented, it was also hypothesized that items which show a significant difference between the "12" closures and the "13" and/or "15-U" closures can be used to predict vocational rehabilitation or non-rehabilitation. Unfortunately, it was impossible to develop or use the multiple regression method as a means of prediction because the important factors as they appeared in this study were recorded on a mixture of nominal, ordinal, and Interval scales. It was therefore decided that check lists utilizing the significant factors would be tried. Preparation of the Check Lists It seemed clear that separate check lists should be made for men and for women, as well as for those under 20 and over 2 0, inasmuch as significant sex differences had been found as well as vocational data differences which were Inappropriate for young people with no substan tial work histories. It was therefore necessary to simplify the research data in such a manner that the 195 196 important appropriate factors could be determined. Table l6o shoved the frequencies with which various Items discriminated between all men and all women. Tables l6l and 162 presented the tabulation of frequencies which discriminated between the women and the men in all of the seven inter-*group comparisons. Table 163 showed the tabulation of frequencies for the items which discriminated between groups in all seven of these comparisons. Table 161+ presented the tabulation of frequencies of significant Chi Squares which appeared in all 21 compari sons. An inspection of these tables and the tables which presented the rank orderings of the five items that could not be subjected to the Chi Square tests, showed that 19 items plus the 7 "no response" categories of the vocational data items discriminated in some measure between the rehabilitated and non-rehabilltated clients. In order to secure some estimate of the "weight" contributed by the items, the coefficients of contingency which were available on items which had been subjected to the Chi Square tests were added and then averaged. This procedure resulted in a listing of 1I 4. items having "coefficients" of .2 0 or better. A process of trial and error which started with all 1I 4. items gradually reduced the list to 8 which appeared to screen in the rehabilitated adult males most 197 effectively, while weeding out those who had not been rehabilitated. It was Interesting to recall at this point Guilford's comment that: When a large number of tests are validated singly for the prediction of a certain criterion, only it or £ when combined often seem sufficient. As a matter of fact, adding tests beyond the point at whloh all the factors of the test measured in common with the criterion are covered often merely contributes error variance to the composite. ( 3sij.ll) He goes on to state: The reason why only four or five tests have seemed to be the limit in a useful battery is because only a limited number of the human abilities and other traits that are involved in a practical criterion have been represented in the test. Although a dozen different testa may have been tried out, the same limited number of fundamental factors have been measured by them, and the measurement is duplicated several times over. If a careful study of the criterion is made, revealing all the factors that are worth trying to predict, and if there is sufficient variety in the teat to take care of all the factors, it will be found that more than four or five tests will probably be needed. (3*1*12) Check list for adult men The eight items which appeared to present a useful pattern of positive indicators for rehabilitation of adult men were: 1. Dependents (2 or more). 2. Referral by self or others. 3. Age disabled for work (21-l|.£). l j . . Time since last employment (worked within the year prior to application to DVR). 198 *>. Breaks in work history (3 or less). 6. Recordable response to length of most reoent job. 7. Recordable response to length of longest job. 8. Recordable response to number of employers. It oan be seen that five of the eight items ( i f . through 8) occurred within the Vocational Data group. Check list for adult women In a similar fashion it was determined that these items appeared to be the most important positive indicators in forecasting the rehabilitation of the adult women: 1. Referral by self or others. 2. Support by family. 3. Education (high school or better). i j . . Origin of disability (congenital or disease). *>. Time since last employment (employed within year prior to application to DVR). 6. Recordable response to length of most recent job. 7. Recordable response to number of employers. In this "pattern” the Personal-Social factors (1 through 3) were represented on an equal basis with the Vocational factors (5 through 7). Check list for young women The check list developed for the women 20 or under used these items: 1. Source of referral (school)* 2* Source of support (family)* 3* Education (high sohool or better)* I j . * Origin of disability (congenital or disease)* Check list for young men The check list developed for the men 20 or under was as follows: 1* Previous application (none)* 2* Source of referral (school)* 3* Disabilities resulting in impaired communica tions (mental retardation, emotional* hearing, visual)* It* Observable disabilities (visual* amputation* visible devices)* The last two cheek lists took into account the fact that the younger persons had little if no work experi ence at the time they had made application to DVR0 For these individuals* the term Vocational Rehabilitation would seem to be inapporpriate and might better be considered as Vocational Preparation or Adjustment* Testing the Cheek Lists After the check lists were prepared* a tabulation was made of all the clients in the sample used in the 200 research, and a score of 1 was given for each item "passed*" The outoff score of 5 for the men1 a check list and if for the women's was determined by trial and error as that "saving" the largest number of "1 2" closures. In a similar fashion outoff scores of 3 and 2 were determined for the young women and the young men respec tively* Retesting the Check Lists The results of these scorings indicated that the check lists seemed to screen in rehabilitated clients better than they screened out those who were not rehabili tated, and it was decided to try the check lists on an entirely different population* In order to accomplish this, the first 3I 4.8 closed eases in the 1963-6! * . files in the Long Beach area of the Long Beach District Office were scored using the appropriate list* These 3M* oases repre sented eight-ninths (8 of the 9 drawers) of the oases closed in status "1 2," "1 3s” or "1 5” which were in the files as of June 1, 196! * . * (The "15” closures were again separated into those who were closed employed and those who were unemployed*) This number of oases was very close to the number used in the original sample— 3^0* Table 167 show© the results of the Chi Square tests which were made comparing the two methods in both year8* It can be seen that the itemised check list 201 TABLE 167 RESULTS OP CHI SQUARE TESTS MADE COMPARING CHECK LIST PREDICTIONS WITH ACTUAL RESULTS Comparison Age Year Closed X2 P Males 21 plus ( 6 2-6 3) N S Males 21 plus ( 6 3-6I 4. ) 9.87 *01 Females 21 plus ( 6 2-6 3) N S Females 21 plus ( 6 3-6I 4.) N S Males 20 minus ( 6 2-6 3) N S Males 20 minus ( 6 3-6I*) N S Females 20 minus ( 6 2-6 3) N S Females 20 minus ( 6 3-6I*) N S 202 predicted rehabilitation and non-rehabilitation for the adult men in the 19&3-61). group at the .01 level of confi dence and that it approached the .001 level. There were no significant differences between the check lists and the present methods in all other instances. Tables 168, 1 6 9, 170, and 171 show the numbers of cases within each closure status (by box and age group) which were accepted by the present methods in comparison to those screened in by the check lists. Table 173 shows the per cent of I9 6 3-6I J . adult men (by closure status) who were screened in and out by the check list. The numbers of young clients were so small and the items so few that the results cannot be considered of practical value. Tables 168 and 169 also show that the results for both years were extrapolated to determine the number of eases which would have had to have been accepted in order to secure the same numbers of rehabilitated clients as did the current methods. Table 172 summarizes the results for both years. Inasmuch as the check lists predicted at least as well fra the current procedures and in one instance proved to be significantly better, the further development and refinement of this type of technique for "processing” applicants seems mandatory for several reasons 3 1. This kind of screening method eliminates personal biases. 203 TABLE 168 COMPARISON OP PREDICTION OP REHABILITATION AND NON-REHABILITATION BY CHECK LIST AND BY PRESENT METHODS (ALL CLOSURES) 1962-196i i . 1 (1) (2) (3) Present Screened in Extrapolated Methods by Check Lists Acceptances* 1962-1963 Rehabilitations ("1 2"s and ”12-A"s) 118 99 118 Non-Rehabilitations ("1 3"s, "l£-TT"s, and "1£-E"s) 222 133 162 Total 3i *0 232 280 1963-1961* Rehabilitations (”1 2"a and "12-A"s) 159 109 159 Non-Rehabilitations ("1 3"s» "l5-TJ"s, and " 15-3 2" s) 189 76 111 Total 3^8 185 270 •This column contains the total numbers of oases (by extrapolation) which would have to be accepted by the check lists in order to secure the same numbers of rehabil itations as the present methods* Comparison of Column 3 with Column 1 shows that in both years the total accept ances and the non-rehabilitations were fewer when screened in by check lists. (Number of rehabilitations held constant)• TABIB 169 IRIDICTXON OF KEHABIUTATICHS COMPARING CHECK LISTS TO PRESENT METHCDS (1962-1961*) Age Group and Sex (1) Total Accepted by Present Methods (2) Total Accepted by Check list (3) Rehabs. by Present Ifethoda <U) Rehabs* by Check list (5) Extrapolated Acceptances8- Males 21+ 229 160 77 61 202 Females 21+ 6k 35 19 17 39 1962-1963 Males 20 29 21 10 9 23 Females 20 18 16 12 12 16 Total 31*0 232 118 99 280 Males 21+ 21*0 119 111 76 17Ub Females 21+ 75 1*0 35 22 6k 1963-1961* Males 20— 21 17 8 6 23 Females 20 12 9 5 5 9 Total 3U8 185 159 109 290 ®Th±s eoltem contains the mssbers of eases (by extrapolation) which would have to be accepted by the check lists in order to secure the saise numbers of rehabilitations as were secured by the present methods« Comparison of Column 5 with Column 1 shoes that the differences vere in faror of the check lists in all instances but one (Hale 20, 1963-196U). ^Difference significant at the .01 level. 205 TABLE 170 COMPARISON OP "13H CLOSURES ACCEPTED BY PRESENT METHODS AND BY CHECK LISTS (I9 6 2-I96I 1) Age Group and Sex Number of "13w® Accepted by Present Methods Number of "13"a Accepted by Check List 1 9 6 2 -1 9 6 3 Males 21+ 61 27 Females 21+ 22 3 Males 20- 9 k Females 20- 2 1 Total 9k 35 1 9 6 3-1961* Males 21+ 33 8 Females 21+ 16 8 Males 20- 2 1 Females 20- 2 1 Total 53 18 206 TABLE 171 COMPARISON OP "1£-UNEMPLOYED" CLOSURES ACCEPTED BY PRESENT METHODS AND BY CHECK LISTS (1962-19614. ) Age Group and Sox Number of "15-U"s Accepted by Present Methods Number of "15-13" a Accepted by Cheek Lists 1 9 6 2 -1 9 6 3 Male s 21* Si 38 Females 21* 18 11 Males 20- 8 7 Females 20- k 3 Total 81 59 1 9 6 3-196) 4. Males 21* 69 21 Females 21* 18 5 Males 20- 8 8 Females 20- 5 3 Total 100 37 207 TABLE 172 COMPARISON QP "l^-EMPLOYED" CLOSURES ACCEPTED BY PRESENT METHODS AND BY CHECK LISTS (I962-I96I 1 .) Age Croup Number of "15-E"s Number of "l£-E”s and Sex Accepted by Accepted by Present Methods Check Lists I962-I963 Males 21+ l*o 3l* Females 21+ 5 1* Males 20- 2 1 Females 20- 0 0 Total 47 39 I963-I96I 4. Males 21+ 27 H* Females 21+ 6 5 Males 20- 3 2 Females 20- 0 0 Total 36 21 208 TABLE 173 COMPARISON (BY CLOSURE STATUS) OF MEN 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER WITH CHECK LIST SCORES ABOVE AND BELOW 5 (1 9 6 3-1 9 6! * . ) Employed Unemployed "1 2"a "15-E"s "1 3" s "1£-U"s Below 5 3 2% 51* 79% 6 8# or Above 6Q% 21% 32% Total 100 % 1 0 0% 1 0 0% 100% 209 2* Since it is objeotive it oan be quickly and easily administered and scored fluid requires no special skills. 3. It is economical of time, money, and personnel, and would permit the screening of large numbers of applicants in a short space of time* Extrapolations also indicated that in most instances considerably fewer numbers of applicants would have to be aooepted in order to achieve the number of rehabilitations now accomplished* CHAPTER X SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary This research was concerned with differences which might be found between persons with vocational handicaps of a physical, mental, or emotional-social nature who are or are not vocationally rehabilitated under the auspices of the California State Department of Rehabilitation— specifically, those who were served in the Long Beach area of the Long Beach Distriot Office of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not factual, personal data gathered from both the Intake Counselors and the applicants during the screening process could be shown to provide warning signals or positive indicators which were significantly related to "success” or "failure” in terms of vocational rehabilita tion. Methodology The preliminary investigation consisted of two 210 211 phases: 1* A review of research which dealt with the reliability of personal or factual data* This revealed that reports on reliability were inconsistent and that accuracy ranged from approximately zero to almost 100 per cent* 2. A pilot study to determine the feasibility of developing a survey instrument* This endeavor was useful in establishing a model for the organization of the data and in pointing out the necessity for eliminating or clarifying certain items* The major investigation was accomplished as follows: 1. Samples were drawn from the 1962-63 closed files of the Long Beach area of the Long Beach District Office* These consisted of 5>0 per cent of the files of those persons closed as rehabilitated, $0 per cent of the files of those persons closed before a rehabilitation plan was begun, and 100 per cent of the files of those persons who were terminated after their plans had been started* Files of persons who were terminated before a plan had been developed were subdivided according to whether they were closed as employed or as unemployed* The counselor variable was controlled by draw ing alternate closed eases from every counselor in each of the first two categories of closure. Because of the inconsistency noted during the review of the reliability of personal data, an internal consistency check of 3 of the factual data items was made. This Indicated that there was at least 60 per cent agreement between counselor and applicant records of the data* Null hypotheses regarding sex or group differ ences among persons of different closure status in terms of response or non-response to 28 personal data items gathered from Intake records were formulated. Null hypotheses regarding sex and work history differences of persons within a particular closure group were also stated. In addition, it was hypothesized that items which indicated a significant difference between persons closed as employed and those closed unemployed could be used to predict vocational rehabilitation or non- rehabilitation. Item comparisons were then computed using the Chi Square technique as well a© frequency rank order for those items which could not be subjected to this procedure. Statistical significance was established at the «0£ level or better In order to reduce the probability of Type II errors* This statistical treatment was chosen because the data presented a mixture from nominal, ordinal, and interval scales. It had the additional advantage of giving an estimate of correlation* An estimate of the counselors* opinions of the rank order importance of 22 items was obtained through the use of Kendall Coefficients of Concordance and by the order of the sums of the ranks* These were computed from rank orders established by the counselors. Check lists were next developed by trial and error from items which had achieved statistical significance and from items whose rank order frequencies seemed to show important differ- ences. Since major work history and sex differences had been demonstrated, if separate lists were prepared--one each for adult males, adult females, young men, and young women. The age cutoff was set at 21 years. All check lists were tested on the 1 9 6 2 -6 3 sample of 3lf 0 cases and cutoff scores of f > and If established for the adult men and women respectively. 9. 10. li. Findings 1. 2. 3. k* 5 . 2lk The lists were retested on a sample of 348 oases drawn from the 1 9 6 3 -6 4 closed files. Results of comparisons of numbers of rehabili tations and non-rehabilitations screened by both methods were tested by Chi Square. Extrapolations were done (by sex and age groups) to determine the numbers of applicants who would have to be accepted by the check list method in order to secure the same number of rehabilitations which occurred under present conditions. Significant sex differences were found within closure groups. Significant sex and group differences were found between closure groups• Significant sex and group differences were found in work histories. Significant sex and group differences were found between closure groups in terms of response or non-response to items. In general, the consensus orderings of the counselors gave precedence to items which by statistical treatment were determined to bear a significant relationship to rehabilitation. 6* The check list which appeared to present a useful pattern of positive indicators for the adult men proved to be heavily weighted with Vocational Data items. 7* The check list for adult women showed a pattern of positive indicators for rehabili tation which included equal representation of Personal-Social Data and Vocational Data. 8* The check lists for the young men and women contained so few items and the sample popula tions were so small (particularly in 1 9 6 3-61j . ) that it was felt the results could not be of practical value. 9* Chi Square tests made of the numbers of rehabilitations and non-rehabilitations soreened by check lists and by current proce dures in the samples drawn from 1 9 6 2 -6 3 and from 1 9 6 3-6I 1. files indicated no statistically significant differences except for the comparison made of adult men in the 1 9 6 3-6l j . aample. 10. The extrapolations done (by sex and age groups) to determine the numbers of applicants who would have to be accepted by the check list method in order to secure the same number of rehabilitations which occurred 216 under present conditions were not signifi cantly different statistically. The number of acceptances needed by the check list method was in most instances, however, considerably less# Conclusions 1. By far the largest number of significant sex differences were found among the rehabilitated olienta. These differences, which were frequently related to their disabilities, were not duplicated among the non- rehabilltated clients except for marital status and number of dependents. It seems plausible that the duplications may have occurred as a function of the screening process since the man with dependents and the woman who is not hampered by the responsibility of caring for small chil dren are often accepted. It was noted that the rehabilitated woman tended to have a congenital defect which impaired her communica tion with others, or a disease, while a rehabilitated man had recently suffered an accident. Since the disabilities differed, this In itself does not explain the relationship to successful completion of a vocational plan. Rather, the real issue could well center in the psychological aspects of the disability as they affected the client*s motivation to work. Is it possible that these 217 men and women vers able to make effective use of agenoy services because they had comfortably incorporated their Impairments Into their self oonoepts? Although our cultural value systems demand perfec tion, the attitude toward women is nurturing and protective and does not tend to encourage their mobility. The Importance which sooiety attaches to job-incurred disabili ties is seen in the elaborate and legalized system of benefits and protection provided for workers through such agencies as the Workmen's Compensation Fund and the Industrial Accident Commission, The significance of these oultural values to the Individual's ability to accept Impairment cannot be ignored, and it seems probable that the factors which enable women to accept impairment and function effectively in the role of employee are not the same as those which operate among the men. Some empirical support for this is indicated from recent research completed by Fisher (it-1) on differences which he found between men and women in body perception. His experiments reveal significant differences (P<.001) between the responses of males and females to lens distortions of their mirror images. Although the men tended to interpret change® as improvement, this was not true of the women, Fisher's hypothesis that "women are more acceptive than men of their immediate body attributes 218 and therefore lees likely to Interpret gross alterations In their appearance as representing ♦improvement* in the direction of some Idealised standard” (lf.0:l8) was supported by his findings* His basic concept was that women more readily accept and are secure about their bodies than men because they can more easily relate their bodies to their fundamental roles In society* The man, on the other hand, Is encouraged to ignore his body (except to be strong and muscular) and may find it more difficult "to associate his body attributes with what is required of him for success and attainment" (1 ^0:19)* Since the rehabilitated women tended to have congenital defects or diseases, they had either had years of experience in learning to adjust to their disabilities or, in the case of disease, could still have maintained their primary roles as women in a culture which tolerates illness in the "weaker" sex* The fact that their disabili ties tended to interfere with communication could also, perhaps, have been more easily accepted since, as Fisher noted, our culture does not encourage mobility in women and the impairment of communication may, therefore, have been less threatening than otherwise* For quite different reasons, the rehabilitated man may have been able to accept accidental disablement* As Fisher has pointed out, men seem to have less distinct and 219 meaningful concepts of their body boundaries, and it may be that they were therefore better able to tolerate impairment, particularly in view of the "honor” accorded them through legal and material benefits* No conclusions can be derived from the present data, but they do suggest the possibility that widely variant psychological factors as they relate to disability in men and women might be crucial in rehabilitation* 2* The differences found among persons of differ ent closure status varied from comparison to comparison* It is curious that the non-rehabilitated persons who were closed as unemployed before a plan was initiated ("l£-U"s) were those who seemed most like the rehabilitated clients* Only two factors discriminated at the established signifi cance level between these rehabilitated and unemployed groups— the age at onset, and the breaks in work history* Even the items which most frequently predieted rehabilita tion as opposed to non-rehabilitation (recordable responses to vocational data) did not discriminate between these two groups of persona in any of the comparisons made (male, female, or group). Although these differences are not easily explained from the present data, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in this instance the prevalence of emotional problems among the non-rehabilitated women may have had some 220 Important relationship to the differences In outcomes* It was also noted that there appeared to be important differ ences In the sources of referral, as well as sources of support* (For those who were not entered Into a plan the Bureau of Public Assistance and other public or private agencies were found to be among the three main sources of referral, while pensions and public funds ranked in second place as sources of their financial support). Perhaps as Turner indicates, this unemployed client "may be much more realistically oriented in withdrawing from an employment search in the face of such odds than are those of us who insist he continue in this unfruitful and unrewarding search" (80:30)* This suggestion seems logical since many clients are not put into plan because of apparent "lack of motivation." The group of non-rehabilitated persons who pre sented the sharpest contrast to those who were rehabili tated, were nevertheless those who apparently showed enough promise to have actually developed a plan with their counselors* These non-rehabilitated clients tended to be somewhat older, to have had less education, and to have had more breaks in their work histories* Perhaps this kind of individual is as Wright postulates "a person whose disability is so severe as to be undeniable so that he has little recourse but to grapple with the problem" (lf>*5 3)* 221 Yet the lack of commitment to work is suggested by the significant number of "failures to respond" which occurred in their employment records* It seems possible that these are persons who have continually failed to find a means of satisfying their needs in the working world* In general, they have exhibited shifting work patterns which alternate between trial and stability* It may be that these individuals perceive the rehabilitation agency as a panacea for their "employment ills," and if they are disillusioned, they could be expected to drop out of their rehabilitation programs* Furthermore, many persons feel "forced" to apply to the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation as a means of satisfying the demands made by other agencies such as the Bureau of Public Assistance or the Social Security Administration* Although the rehabilitated clients were much like those who returned to work on their own, the men in the last group appeared to resemble rather closely the older, employed, non-disabled worker* However, the rehabilitated male clients tended to have had more breaks in their work history than those who returned to work on their own* It would seem reasonable that they may have sought the service of the agency for help in stabilizing their employment, and particularly so Inasmuch as those who returned to work on their own tended to have held their most recent jobs 222 thirteen months or more, while the rehabilitated clients tended to have worked less than this amount of time In their most recent employment* Those who had returned to work apparently unaided had also completed the vocational data in their records more adequately than the clients who were rehabilitated by the agency* While no apparent service was rendered to those clients who re-entered the labor market without the benefit of a formal rehabilitation program, they may nevertheless have profited from contact with the agency* It has long been known that persons who are awaiting their turns to begin psychotherapy frequently show spontaneous remissions* Similar findings have been reported for those who have been notified of vocational guidance appointments, and who are waiting to be called* In many instances the same phenomenon may be occurring among clients who re-enter the labor market ostensibly without help* The knowledge that help is available often provides the very support needed by many individuals* It enables them to marshall their own resources and resolve their problems* In these instances, the intangible assistance provided by the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation may be as signifi cant as the tangible services* 3* The significant differences in work histories between the men and the women indicated that this was a 223 factor which clearly distinguished those men who returned to employment from those who did not; for the men who went to work usually had substantial work histories* This was not characteristic of the women* It was noted, however, that the rehabilitated women tended to be under 20 and may therefore have been occupied by school. The higher educational level of the rehabilitated women gives some support to this suggestion. Others were sepa rated or divorced and may have been forced to seek vocational skills for this reason. On the other hand, the woman who returned to work on her own was considerably older and may have needed employment because of the termination of financial support by reason of the death of her spouse, or because of separation or divorce, I ) . , Response or non-response to Vocational Data items was the factor which moat consistently discriminated between those who were closed employed and those who were not. This factor has already been suggested as expressing a ncommitment” to work. Tables l6l, 162, 1 6 3, and l6l j . show quite clearly that information or lack of information regarding the vocational histories of both male and female adult applicants seems of primary importance in the predic tion of the ability to make us© of a vocational rehabilita tion program, A plausible explanation could be found in the rapidly changing conditions of the competitive labor 22k market as the marginally employable person finds it more and more difficult* even with help, to withstand the forces of automation and the changing value which work Itself holds in our culture* It may be that only those clients with the greatest employable potential and the strongest commitment to work will be able to profit from agency services* Many indica tions of these trends can be found in current literature and research (confer Hart, et al. ( l j . 6 ), Auman (3U)> Wirtz (103), Wiener (13), Ehrle ( 3 9), and Neff ( 9 6). The recent report of the Secretary of Labor-- Manpower Research and Training (1 0 3) further substantiates these trends* Possible evidence for their support is suggested by the recent summary of work load reports for the first quarter of 19&3**6^ issued by the California State Depart ment of Rehabilitation Program Planning and Development, Research and Statistic Section (93)* This report indicates that for the first quarter of 1963-6^, referrals, accept ances, and active case loads increased* However, the number of rehabilitations was only 1*£ per cent greater than those of the previous year while the number of closures mad® before a plan was initiated had increased by 6*5 per cent* Since the span of the average rehabilitation program is about two to three years (from acceptance to 225 closure) It can be aeen that the 1 * 5 per cent increase represents persons who began their programs about 1961 or t 1962. There are many indications that current labor market shifts which include the steady increase in unem ployment may have reached the point where the marginally employable adult male is rapidly being eliminated, particularly if his commitment to work is weak— Ehrle (3 9) • 5* The quality and quantity of persons rehabili tated by the Long Beach Distriot Office personnel have top ranking in California. The close resemblance of signifi cant factors (statistically determined) to counselor rankings of these factors suggests that the effective performance of this group may be due to some extent to their knowledgeable recognition of the importance of specific personal data to vocational rehabilitation. 6. The factors which appeared to be useful in predicting rehabilitation for adult males can be inter preted as indicative of the social forces which impel men in this culture to work. They are also indicative of their characteristic responses to these forces. Family responsibilities are inherent in the significance of the number of dependents. Referral by self or others (usually friends) reflects the cultural value given tb Independent 226 or nearly Independent aetlon in one's own behalf--the "do- it-yourself" formula. The age span ( 2I-I 4. 5?) which was important in this group of items suggests the possibility that other social forces may be operant here. Our culture has, until recently, commonly considered age 6 5 as the retirement level. Termination of work activities 20 to i } . 0 years early could bring with it social rejection, family antagonism and self recrimination--pressures which the ordinary individual would find hard to withstand. The remaining items record typical behavior of the working man. As such, they are useful to the extent that future behavior can be predicted from past experiences. In other words, the man who has worked until recently and has had few interruptions in his work record is more likely to take his job seriously and to want to work than the man who has many long-term breaks between jobs or has not worked during a year's span of time. The final items appear to represent what has been called a "commitment to work." The care with which employment records are completed by applicants seems to represent the degree of involvement which they feel toward work. The emotionally disturbed individual, for example, frequently either omits time elements or records them erroneously, or often cannot remember his job duties 227 or oven the names of former employers. The responsibili ties and demands of employment are sometimes so threatening that he disassociates himself to varying degrees from work experiences. He does not become involved. It seems reasonable to assume that the man who presents his work history in such a way that details con cerning the number of his employers„ the length of his most recent job, or the title of his longest job has demonstrated his motivation to maintain employment and will continue to do so. 7. The items which seem pertinent to forecasting rehabilitation among adult women were similar in some respects to those determined for the men. The commitment to work (as it was reflected in the detail of recording employment) remained prominent. So did the reflection of the cultural value of "standing on your own two feet" which was inherent in the presence of the referral by self (or others) item. Two other factors, however, suggest another influence. The Importance of family financial support could be indicative once more of the nurturing and protective attitude toward women which Is present in our culture and emphasizes the significant manner in which this might possibly affect the vocational rehabilitation program of the female applicant. 228 The requirement of at least a high school education can be Interpreted as further evidence of this family protection pattern inasmuch as females are frequently permitted or encouraged to remain in school (particularly among the lower class families) beyond the time when males are expected to seek economic independence. There is also the fact that educational job requirements for women are often Implicitly higher than they are for men. The educational component therefore, could be weighted by both of these influences. 8* Although the check lists for the young men and the young women seemed to predict rehabilitation or non- rehabilitation as well as the current procedures, their reliability and validity are questionable in view of the small samples of young people Included in the study and because of the restricted number of items in the lists. The existence of influential factors which may be common to both the adult and the younger female is suggested by the fact that both their check lists included the family support and education items. 9. Since there did not appear to be any signifi cant difference between the predictive powers of the check lists for adult women and the present screening techniques, the former can be considered just as effective. The 229 eeonomlc&l advantages represented by savings of time, money, and personnel offer tangible support for their use* Their objectivity eliminates the sometimes unfortunate Influences of personal biases which are inevitable under current practices* It seems likely that backlogs of applicants could not develop if the check lists were used— a consequence of major benefit* The efficacy of the check list for adult men is open to speculation* The reasons it functions so well on the sample drawn from the 19^3~19^^- files cannot be determined from the present data. It may be that the rise of unemployment, the upward shifts in job classifications and requirements, the increase in automation, and the transmogrification of cultural work values have reached a vital level* It is conceivable that adult men will be the first to feel these pressures. Their ability to find and maintain employment may soon depend upon employment potential in which motivation to work is critical* Indeed this condition is already apparent* Previous reference has been made to the report of the Secretary of Labor which indicates that results of retraining programs for workers have been most disappointing, particularly for those workers who were 1^ 6 and over (1 0 3) * 10* The extrapolations indicated that when the number of rehabilitations was held constant, the number of 23 0 applicants accepted by check lists were substantially fewer than those screened in by current methods. Though not statistically significant (except in the instance noted above) they seem to furnish positive evidence for the use of the check lists* Recommendations 1. It is recommended that further investigation be made on larger samples of the Interrelationships which might exist among such personal data items as were utilized in this study. It could be helpful to know, for example, whether the age at onset of the particular disability of a man or woman had any influence on rehabili tation* Fisher’s experiments indicated that anxiety among adult women regarding leg distortions appeared to be higher than that found among very young girls* If this finding could be confirmed, there would be reason to expect that leg impairment during adulthood might be less readily accepted by the woman so affected* Emotional disturbance aroused by such a trauma could seriously Interfere with attempts at rehabilitation* 2* It is recommended that duplicate research be conducted on a state-wide basis of the item differences which might be found among persons of varying closure status* This should include comparisons of significant- insignificant work histories, and response-non-response 231 patterns* Larger numbers would ensure a more adequate study of Individuals closed employed before their plans were initiated* It could also be determined whether the differences found in the Long Beach area were peculiar to the locale or represented characteristics common to rehabilitation clients in general* 3* It is recommended that counselor rankings of the importance of the basic personal data be secured from other (preferably all) districts* Kendall’s Coefficients of Concordance could be used again to evaluate the agree ment between the statistically determined significance of items and district rankings* If large discrepancies occurred, this information could be utilized to advantage if needs for specialized counselor training could be met* At the time of the initial counselor opinion study, it was noted that only the two counselors who had observ able disabilities ranked Disability Group Data as first in order of importance* It would be interesting to see whether this response were characteristic of similarly affected personnel* The data for this type of investigation can be quickly and easily gathered, and the statistical treatment is not complicated. i j . * It is recommended that the adult check lists be tried on an experimental basis for a period of six 232 months to one year in the Long Beach area of the Long Beaeh District Office and in randomly selected offices throughout the state. The items which were found to have significant discriminating value would appear to be predietlvely useful on a state-wide basis. Controls could be provided by having Intake Counselors screen alternate clients by means of the appropriate check list. Records of all persons accepted during this period should furnish adequate samples for study and comparison. 5>. It is recommended that further research be instigated to determine more clearly those factors which would be helpful in predicting the outcomes of the voca tional rehabilitation programs for young people. The vocational data which are useful in the case of adults is often lacking. The present findings and counselor observations would seem to indicate that in addition to those used in the check lists, such factors as attitude of the family, possession of a valid driver*s license, and ability to use public transportation might be worth investigating. 6. It Is reoommended that immediate and intensive research be initiated to explore and determine rehabilita tion services which could effectively expand and/or replace vocational services now provided. The rapidly changing nature of the open labor market which la bringing about an augmentation of skilled and professional occupations and a rapid decrease in semi-skilled, unskilled and even some service and clerical jobs, brings with it serious implica tions for vocational rehabilitation agencies. Of growing concern is the knowledge that traditional work values are disintegrating under the impact of this and several other forces whleh Miller and Form ( 6 ) list as: 1. The decay of the religious view of work, 2. The definition of formal education as both vocational and professional training, 3. The increase of "get rich quick" opportunities, 1+. The disappearance of social stability and confidence in long run goals because of war, Inflation, and depression, so that the emphasis turns to "get it now," 5, The disappearance of apprentice work experiences. With the decay of the religious view of work which held, in essence, that it was manfs duty to work, and to work hard, a vitally impelling psychological force toward gainful employment is disappearing. Moreover, since vocational training is increasingly equated with formal education, the prospects become less and less promising for those persons unable intellectually and/or socially to profit from advanced schooling. Since 50 P®r cent of the population has "below average" intelligence, the implica tions are obvious. Although the emphasis on "get it now" is increas ing, opportunities to do so are dwindling. The necessity 23k for prolonged education to achieve satisfying employment makes overnight suooess most unlikely. Finally, as apprentice work experiences disappear, so do the training facilities for the marginal worker whose employment horizon thus becomes even more limited. All these factors appear to indicate that voca tional rehabilitation as It is now practiced and defined may soon be a thing of the past. There is an urgent need for the planning and development of rehabilitation in a much broader sense. Large numbers of persons who are dally being eliminated from the labor market are and will be In need of help in learning to adjust to a life which is no longer centered around work. Effective solutions to the problems which are arising will not be easily found, for the significance of work In the individualfs total life adjustment has been rooted in tradition and has been inextricably woven Into the pattern of the individualfa life span from birth to death® It has furnished important psychological, economic, and physical satisfactions to most individuals in our culture, and will hence not be quickly replaced. Its importance has perhaps been most clearly seen during times of unemployment, and at retire ment, when the deprivation of this activity is so fre quently experienced with traumatic Intensity, Psycholog ical and physical apathy are well known concomitants of this loss. For the majority of persons whose commitment to work has been largely dependent upon the necessity to fulfill the lower order needs for food, shelter, accept ance, and occasionally recognition, and to conform to cultural expectations, the loss of opportunities to work may be particularly disturbing. Such persons have limited personal resources upon which to draw, so that finding acceptable substitutes for work may present overwhelming difficulties. APPENDIX A LIST OP ITEMS, SUB-CATEGORIES, AND GROUPS APPENDIX A LIST OP ITEMS, SOB-CATEGORIES, AND GROUPS Groups I Personal-Social Data (items 1 - 9) II Disability Data (items 10 - 20) III Vooational Data (items 21 - 28) Items 1. Sex 2. Raoe 3« Marital Status If. Number of Dependents 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 I *>♦ Source of Referral 0 1 2 3 No response Male Female No response Caucasian Other No response Single Married or widowed Separated or divorced No response 0 1 2 5 or more No response Self Other individual California Department of Employ ment Doctor School Bureau of Public Assistance 237 6, Major Soureo of Financial Support 7* Previous Applica tion 8. Years of Education 9. Age at Application 2 3 8 7) Insurance agency Old Age & Survivors* Insurance Industrial Accident Commission Voluntary insurance referral Bureau of Employees* Compensation Private insurance company 8) Public or private agency Hospital Mental Health Health agency Family Service State Mental Hygiene 9) Sheltered Workshop Community Rehabilitation Indus* tries Goodwill Epi-Rab 0) No response 1) Family or alimony 2) Friends or church 3 ) Wages or savings I j . ) Public agency Bureau of Public Assistance Mental Hygiene 5) Unemployment Insurance 6 ) Workmen*s Compensation, Disability Insurance, Pension (disability), Old Age & Survivors* Insurance, Disability Insurance 0) No response 1) 0 2) 1 3) 2 or more 0 ) No response 1) 5 or less 2) 6 or 7 3) 8 or 9 k) 10 or 11 5) 12 13 or 1I 4. 7) IS or more 0 ) No response 1) 16 - 20 2) 21 - 25 3) 26 - 30 £> *} - 3S S) 36 - 40 6) - Ss 7) 4.6 - 50 8) Si - ss 9) S6 or over 239 10* Age at Onset 11* Years Sinoe Onset 12* Disability A 13. Disability B l i } . . Origin of Disability A 15. Kind of Disability SI 2) ! 7) I I I I I No response Congenital 1-10 11 - 20 21 - 30 31 - \Q 5 - 1 - 50 51 - 60 0) No response 1 or less 2-5 ) 6 - 10 1 1 - 1 5 > 1 6 - 2 0 ) 21 - 25 > 2 6 - 3 0 ) 31 or more 0) No response 1) Those resulting in impaired communication with others: Mental Retardation Visual Emotional Hearing 2) Those not affecting communications with others: Cardiac Amputation Back Impairment Other impairments Epilepsy 0) No response 1) Observable: Visual Amputation Visible devices or deformities 2) Not observable 0) No response 1) Disease 2) Accident 3 ) Congenital 0) No response 1) Emotional 2) Mental Retardation ) Epilepsy ) Cardiac ) Back impairment 6) Amputation 7) Visual 8) Hearing 9) Other Impairment 2lj.0 16. Disability C 0) No response 1) Disabilities affooting intellec tual processes: Mental Retardation Epilepsy Emotional 2) Other impairments Baok Respiratory Amputation Cardiac Visual Hearing Other impairments 17, Origin of Disability B 18. Age Disabled for Work 1 9, Activity A 20. Activity B 21. Time since Last Employment 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 I No response Congenital Accident Disease Emotional No response 16 - 20 21 - 2$ 26 - 30 3} - p 36 - ko & - 7) l i -6 - 50 8) 51 - X 9) £6 - 60 0) No response 1) Needs device and/or others for mobility 2) Without help or with device not limiting mobility 0) No response 1) Without help 2) Observable device 3) Unobservable device No response Working Up to o months 7 months - 1 year 13 months - 2 years 25 months - 3 years 7 months - J 4. years 9 months - $ years or more ever worked Insignificant work history 2l | . l 22. DOT Cod© of Moat Reoent Job 23* Length of Moat Reoent Job 2l*. DOT Code of Longest Job 25* Length of Longest Job 0 1 2 I 0 1 2 1 7 8 0 1 2 I 0 1 2 I 7 8 26. Ratio of Education 0 to Work 1 2 I 7 8 9 No response 8 or 9 No response 6 months or less 7 months - 1 year 13 months 25 months 37 months 49 months - 2 years years years or more Never worked Insignificant work history -I No response 8 or 9 No response 6 months or less 7 months - 1 year 13 months - 2 years 23 months - 3 years 37 months - 4 years 49 months or more Never worked Insignificant work history Never worked, Insignificant work history, no response No difference 1 - 1*9 plus - 2*9 plus * * 3»9 plus or more plus - 1 .9 minus - 2*9 minus - 3«9 minus or more minus i 1 2 i 2 7* Humber of Employers 28* Breaks In Work H istory o f 1 Month or More 2) 8 II I 0) No response 1) 1 or 2 3 or k 5 o p 6 7 or 8 9 or 10 11 or 12 13 or 34 8) 1 5 or more 9) Never worked, history ) 0) No response 1) 0 2) 1 ) 2 ) ) 6 ) 5 or more 7) Never worked, h isto r y I 2lf2 Insignificant work In sig n ific a n t work APPENDIX B FORMS USED BY THE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE AT INTAKE F ork VR.s a m .U r*| tfM CV. MAB.. 10*0! STAVBE D EPA RTM ENT O P E D U C A T IO N FtBMW J J ^ VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE S^SjlLi Q q m m m m wmmnkmi SB[m s^ ua o I wish to apply for vocational iekl»!itatm tervicef. I understand that a l l information provided by me will be held confidential and wdl be used only in connection with my rehabilitation program. t. N A M E______; ------------ Social Security No*. Out) (Cta) tWAOn t . MAILING ADDRESS— ___ ( S n c ic la ) (Or) 0 W ) f C a a m t f i Fksm e _______ , To n in California-----------— Yean in County------ --- 3. Date of birth_______ Age-- Last grade completed in school---------------------- — Where- 4. Who told you about the Vocational Rehabilitation Service?-------- 3. What is your disability?..................... ..... , -------- 6. How was it caused? — ------------------------------------------------------- When?----------- CT«> 7. How does it keep you from working?. 8. Please give mme and address of doctors or clinic acquainted with your problem: n a m e a d d s e s s l a s t s e e n P. Have you ever applied for rehabilitation before?___________________________________________ ; _ ( W ! b») (Vba) 10. Present source of income of you or your family: Wages , Savings_________ Relief_________» Other- 11. "What is your usual job er occupation?------------------------------------------------------ ------- 12. What help do you need to overcome your disability and get employment?. 4. Who told 700 about the Vocational RehabUitstion Semes?, f. What is your disability?--------------------------- ------------- 6. How was it ca used?— — ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When?- C T « » > 7. How does It keep you from working?---------- ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- i . Please give name and a dd re ss of doctors or dime acquainted with your problem: n a m e addeess last seen f. Have you ever applied for rehabilitation before?,_________________________________ _ 10 . Present source of income of you or your family: Wages______— , Savings________ , Relief , Other. 11. What is your • u s u a l job cr occupation?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- 12 . What help do you need to overcome your disability and get employment?.__________________________________ 13. Are these answers in your own handwriting: Yes □ No Q 14. Date ,----------------------------------------------- — --------- ( S c s i t w * ) mmmi pim tmm m itfWHBn mm, form m% m attach it to thb form. mm imi . oh ® apo CA L IF O R N IA STATE DE PARTMENT OF EDUCATION VOC AT IO NA L R E H AB IL IT AT IO N SERV ICE F o r m V R - 2 B irev. jam.. 1939 ) Namf Date . EMPLOYMENT RECORD If you have ever w orked it is im portant that you give us all inform ation. Please list all jobs and m ilitary experience and also explain periods o f u n em p loym en t. Please draw a line between the jobs at the point your disability began. B E G I N W I T H Y O U R M O S T R E C E N T J O B F R O M M O . Y R. T O M O . Y R . N A M E A N D A D D R E S S O F C O M P A N Y W H A T K I N D O F W O R K D I D Y O U D O ? R E A S O N S F O R L E A V I N G 1 (IF MORE SPACE IS R E Q U IR E D , A T T A C H A SEPA R A TE SH EE T ) A SPO INTAKE SURVEY Address........................... ............................................................................. C ity------------------------ ---------------- -------------------------- Zone_____ County_____________ .__________ ...Phone___ Social Security no__________ D.O.T. no. (C D E )______ Automobile license no. ________ Operator’s no......................... Can be reached through______________________________________ Relationship Address.... __________________ ___ ________ Phone__________ Street no. C ity 1. Previous rehab, closure date ________________ D istrict_______ 2. Name of referral agency ___________________ __________ Person making referral ___________________ _ ____ _________ 3. OASI Disability Insurance status: Allowed Denied Cash benefit — ------------------------- Childhood disability............................................ ........... ........ ....... N ot an applicant_______ In Process............... Unknown................ 4. (a) Veterans status: N ot a Veteran ... Claim no. _______ Serial no...._______ Branch_________________ Date of entry........................ Date of release ............ (b) Workmen’s Comp, status: N ot a W C case_______ Claim no________________ Carrier____________________ Name of A ttorney___________ ___________ ___________ Employer at Date of Years completed 8. Place of birth________________________Date_______________ U.S. Citizen: Yes N o Yrs. in Calif_____________ 9. White . .. .. Negro _______ Indian________ Other________ 10. Marital status: Single_______ Married.............. Widowed______ Divorced Separated Maiden Name____________ ____ 11. Source of support: List monthly amount. W ages_______________ Savings___ _______ _______ _______ Family.. ____________ Friends_________ ____ Pub. asst. __________________ Pri. relief agcy________________ Unempl. Ins------------------------- Workmen’s Comp.......................... OASI Dis. Ins.......................... State Dis. Ins.___._____ Personal Ins ___ ___ _ _ __________ _ _ __________________ (it» te typ*) Other __ ______________________________________________ 12. Public assistance data: Date public assistance began ____ Type___________ County case no. ...District office_______________ If not receiving assistance, has application been made: Y es N o Denied--------- 13. Work history: Before A fter disability disability Never worked---------------------------------- --------------- -------------- C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f R e h a b i l i t a t i o n D i v i s i o n o f V o c a t i o n a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Form VR-4A (rev . 7-62) PERSONAL, SOCIAL A N D ECO NO M IC D A T A 7. Education: Mr., Mrs., Miss________________________________ Ntou Counselor.. ___ Date Address __________________ . ..Phone........ S trett no. C ity 1. Previous rehab, closure date ________________ District. 2. Name of referral agency ___________________ ____ Person making referral ___________________ _ _______ 3. OASI Disability Insurance status: Allowed Denied Cash benefit_________________________ ____ ____ __ _ ______ Childhood disability..................................... ................... ........ ........... N ot an applicant In Process_______ Unknown_________ 4. (a) Veterans status: N ot a Veteran_________ Claim no __ _______ Serial no. __ B ranch____________________ Date of entry. Date of release ................ .... (b) Workmen’s Comp, status: N ot a W C case ____ Claim no ____________ Carrier______________________ Name of A ttorney__________ _ __________ ___ __________ Employer at Date of time of injury______________ _ _ ______injury ................ Rec. temp, benefits. .. Amt. per week $..................... Rec. rating ---- Date of ra tin g ___________% _______ ___ Cash settlement: (1) Comp. & release D a te ._____ _ _ Amt. $________ (2) Commutation of rating Date Amt. $________ 5. Age: A t onset of disability....................................................................... ....... A t survey------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- 6. Family members in the home: Enter Relation- "D” if N am e A ge ship dependent Wages------------------ ------ ------- Savings _________ _________ Family... -----------------------Friends______________________ Pub. asst. --------------------------- Pri. relief agcy________________ Unempl. Ins------------------------- Workmen’s Comp_____________ OASI Dis. In s. State Dis. Ins.___ Personal Ins ___ ___ _ _ __________ _ _ _____ ( r a t e type) O ther __ _________________________________ 12. Public assistance data: Date public assistance began________________ Type___________ County case no. ____ ...District office__________ _____ If not receiving assistance, has application been made: Y es N o_______ Denied_____ 13. Work history: Before A fter disability disability Never worked______________________ __________ _________ Worked regularly___________________ _________ ___________ Worked irregularly____________________________ ______ — 14. Work status at survey: Wage or salaried worker: Competitive labor market -------------- Sheltered workshop -------------- Self-employed -------------- Homemaker (own home) Unpaid family worker--------- N ot working: Student--------- Other------------------------------------ 15. Total earnings previous 3 months--------------------------------- ------ Usual occupation------------------ ------------------------------------------ Labor union membership------------------------------------------------- Local________ Address__________________ _____ __________ Business Agent_________________________________________ 25218-890 6-64 IOM © OSP C a l i f o r n i a s t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f R e h a b i l i t a t i o n D i v i s i o n o f V o c a t i o n a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Form VR-4B irev. 4-62) N am e . Counselor. _Date_ MEDICAL DATA 16. (Statistical Clerk— obtain disability information from Medical Folder) 17. MOBILITY H o u s e b o u n d ....................................... Capable of activity outside of home W ith help of other person . . . W ithout help of other person . , SOURCES OF MEDICAL INFORM ATION: Indicate current medical care by an asterisk (*). 18. ORIGIN OF DISABILITY Accident Disease CongenitaL Military Service Comp. . . . Occupational Comp. Fed. . Comp. Other . N ot Comp. . Other . . . . D octor, clinic, or hospital Addresj ID No. C ondition treated D ate last seen Claims no current attending physician _____ Medical history taken by counselor: (1) complaint of applicant; (2) past and current medical care; (3) counselor’s observations of extent of applicant’s limitations. SOURCES OF MEDICAL INFORMATION: Indicate current medical care by an asterisk (*) . D o c to r, clin ic, or hospital A ddress ID N o. C o n d itio n tre a te d D a te la st seen Claims no current attending physician _____ Medical history taken by counselor: (1) complaint of applicant; (2) past and current medical care; (3) counselor’s observations of extent of applicant’s limitations. APPENDIX C LIST OP ITEMS AND SUB-CATEGORIES USED IN PINAL RESEARCH APPENDIX C LIST OP ITEMS AND SUB-CATEGORIES USED IN FINAL RESEARCH Items 1, Sax 2, Race 3, Marital Status I j - * 5. Number of Dependents Source of Referral 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 No response Male Female No response Caucasian Other No response Single Married or widowed Separated or divorced No response 0 1 2 or more No response Self Other individual California Department of Employ ment Doctor School Bureau of Public Assistance Insurance agency Old Age & Survivors1 Insurance Industrial Accident Commission Voluntary Insurance Referral Bureau of Employees1 Compensation Private insurance company 2^9 25>0 6. Major Source of Financial Support 7. Previous Application 8* Years of Education 9, Age at Application 10. Age at Onset 11. Years Since Onset 12. Disability A 8) Public or private agency Hospital Mental Hospital Health agency Family Service State Mental Hygiene 9) Sheltered Workshop Community Rehabilitation Indus tries Goodwill Epl-Hab it 0) No response 1) Family or alimony 2) Friends or church ) Wages or savings ) Public agency Bureau of Public Assistance Mental Hygiene p) Unemployment Insurance o) Workmen’s Compensation, Disability Insurance, Pension (disability), Old Age Survivors* Insurance, Disability Insurance 0) No response 1) 0 2) 1 0 ) 1) 2) 0 ) 1) 2) 3) 21 2) or more No response Less than high school High school or more No 1+ 6 response to 2£ plus No response Congenital 1-30 - i j .0 plus 0 ) 1 ) 2) No response or less plus 0) No response 1) Those resulting in impaired communication with others: Mental retardation Visual Emotional Hearing 13. Disability B ll 4.. Origin of Disability A l£. Kind of Disability 16. Disability C 17. Origin of Disability B 18. Age Disabled for Work 251 2) Those not affecting communication with others: Cardiac Amputation Back impairment Other impairments Epilepsy 0) No response 1) Observable: Visual Amputation Visible devices or deformities 2) Not observable 0) No response 1) Disease 2) Accident 3) Congenital 0) No response 1) Emotional 2) Mental retardation 3) Epilepsy I j . ) Cardiac 5) Back impairment 0 ) Amputation 7) Visual 8) Hearing 9) Other impairment 0) No response 1) Disabilities affecting intellec tual processes: Mental retardation Emotional Epilepsy 2) Other impairments Back Visual Respiratory Hearing Amputation Other impairments Cardiac 0) No response 1) Congenital 2) Aooldent 3) Disease q.) Emotional 0) No response 1) 20 or less 2) 21 - 1*5 3 ) 1*6 plus 25>2 19* Activity A 0 1 20* Activity B 21* Time Since Last Employment 22* DOT Code of Most Reoent Job 2 3. Length of Most Recent Job 2lf* DOT Code of Longest Job 25* Length of Longest Job 27* Number of Employers 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 I 0 1 2 0 1 2 5 26* Ratio of Education 0 to Work 1 2 3 No response Needs device and/or others for mobility Without help or with device not limiting mobility No response Without help Observable device Unobservable device No response Up to 1 year 13 months plus No response 0 1 No response Up to 1 year 13 months plus No response 0 No response Up to 3 years 37 months plus No response No difference Worked above educational level Worked below educational level 0) No response 1) 6 or less 2) 7 or more Breaks In Work History of 1 Month or More 0) No response 1) or less 2) k or more APPENDIX D ADDITIONAL TABLES AND RANK ORDERS APPENDIX D ADDITIONAL TABLES AND RANK ORDERS TABLE 23 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN CLOSED IN STATUS "15-E" Item X2 P Coefficient of Contingency 8 Education NS* 11 Years since onset NS 23 Length of most recent job NS *Not significant Notes It was possible to run only 3 Chi Square tests on this group because of the low expected frequencies in the cells. None of the Chi Square tests was signifi cant. Education — n------ 1 M F Mean 10.5 9 Median 8 9 Range I 4. - 16 6 - l i j . Number N = * l j . 2 N = 5 T * Mean 3 8. l j . Median 39 Range Number N 50 5U 19 - £8 33 - 57 N - 5 255 2£6 TABLE 2lf (ITEM £) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP REFERRAL Comparison ("15-E" M/F) Rank 1 2 3 I * . 5 6 7 8 9 Sex M 2) ) 7) 1 9) 5) l £ 6 2) ) 3) 8) 4) 7) ) 8) Frequency 6) 9) M 7 7 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N = l j . 2 T * l j . 7 1 Self 2 Other individual £ California Dept, of Employment 4 Doctor 5 School 6 Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 257 TABLE 25 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("15-E" m/p) Rank Sex Frequency M F M F 1 5 1) ) 12 2 2 6) ) 5) 11 2 3 1) b 11 1 k 3 3! 6) ) 5 0 5 k 3 0 6 2 2) 0 N = if2 0 5 T = 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 3 Wages or savings b Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance o Workmen1s Compensation 258 TABLE 26 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OF KINDS OF DISABILITIES Comparison Rank Sex Frequencies ("15~E" M/F) M F M F 1 $ 9* 12 3 2 9* 3| 10 1 3 1+ / 5) 9 1 k 3 1) ) 2) , ) 3 0 5 6) ) 2 0 6 1) ) 8) 7) \ 2 0 7 2 0 8 2) ) 8 j , ) 1 0 9 7) 6) 1 N = l j . 2 0 5 T = 1+7 1 Emotional 2 Mental retardation Epilepsy Cardiac Back impairment Amputati on 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other Impairment Impaired extremities 7 M _2 F 9 259 TABLE 2? (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("15-E" M/F) Rank Sex M F Frequency M 1 2 3 1* 5 6 7 6 5 2 3 1) ) 7) 3 6 2) ) 1) ) 5) ) 7) 17 7 6 5 3 3 1 N - l j . 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 T » I 4.6 1 2 I 0 Professional 1 Clerical and sales 2 Service 3 Agriculture and fishing k or 5 Skilled 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 8 or 9 Unskilled 260 TABLE 28 (ITEM 24) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF LONGEST JOB Comparison ("15-E" m/f ) Sex Rank M 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 6 5 3 2) ) 1) 7) ) It) 3 7 1) 6i : | 2) Frequency M 15 8 6 4 4 2 2 N a 41 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 T 1 2 * 0 Professional 1 Clerical and sales 2 Service 3 Agriculture and fishing 4 or 5 Skilled 6 or 7 Semi-Skilled 8 or 9 Unskilled 261 TABLE $0 (ITEM 6 ) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison (n12"/"l$~U" Female) Rank Group Frequency "12" "15-u" ”12” "15-u" 1 1 l 22 n 2 4 5 9 3 6 6 3 2 1* 3 3) ) 1 0 5 5) ) 2) *\ 2) 0 0 6 O | H I 0 22 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 3 Wages or savings q. Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance 6 Workmen’s Compensation 262 TABLE 57 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OF KINDS OF DISABILITIES Comparison ("12"/"15-U" Male) Rank Group Frequency "12" "15-U" "12" "15-U" 1 9*) ) 5 ) 9* 25 22 2 5 25 20 3 7 b 10 b b b i) ) 8 3 5 6 l\ 6 ) 7 3 6 1 5 3 7 8 7) 3 3 8 2) ) 2 2 1 9 3) 8 2 87 0 £9 I 1 Emotional 2 Mental retardation Epilepsy Cardiac Back impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment ■^-Impaired extremities ”12" "15-U" 18 6 263 TABLE 58 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ( ”12 /"15-U” Male) Rank Group Frequency ”1 2" "15-u" "1 2" "15-U” 1 6 6 33 27 2 S 5 18 9 3 2 7) ) 3) 9 5 k 3 7 5 $ l 2 6 3 6 7 l) ) k 1 7 k k) 2 79 l 51 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled I 26k TABUS 59 (ITEM 2l|) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF LONGEST JOB Comparison ("12V"15-U" Male) Rank Group Frequency "1 2" "15-u” "1 2” "15-U" 1 6 6 28 25 2 5 2^ 10 3 2 3 8 6 k 3 7) b) 6 3 5 *1 7) 3 3 6 2 3 2 7 1 1 1 73 1 50 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled I 265 TABLE 62 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison («12fi/"l5-U" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency ”12" "15-U" "12" "15-U" 1 1 1 56 29 2 6 6) ) h) 23 19 3 5 lU 19 k k 5 12 9 5 3 3 11 5 6 2 2 2 118 0 81 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 3 Wages or savings I j . Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance o Workmen’s Compensation 266 TABLE 63 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OF DISABILITIES Comparison ("12 V ” 15-U" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "1 2" "15-U" "1 2" "15-U" 1 9* 9* 36 31 2 5 5 26 22 3 7 1 12 7 k 1 k 11 6 5 k 3 10 5 6 8 6 ) ) 7) 9 3 7 6 7 3 8 3 6) ) 2) 5 2 9 2 2 118 2 81 I 1 Emotional 2 Mental retardation Epilepsy Cardiac Back Impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other Impairment ■^Impaired extremities "12" = 2k "15-U" « * 10 35 267 TABLE 61* (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("12 /"15-U" Male & Female ) Rank Group Frequency ”1 2" "15-U" "1 2" "1 5-u” 1 6 6 36 29 2 5 2) ) 3) 19 10 3 3 15 10 k 2 5 13 9 5 1 7 8 7 6 7 1) 1 7 If 2 97 1 67 Professional Clerical and sales Servloe Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 0 2 1 I 268 TABLE 6 5 (ITEM 2If) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OF LONGEST JOB Comparison ("12V”15-U" Male & Female) Group Frequency IXcLOlC ”1 2” "15-U” ”1 2” "15-U” l 6 6 30 27 2 5 3 12 3 2 16 10 k 3 2 12 6 $ 7 3 5 6 7) 3 3 7 1 3 91 2 65 Professional Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 2 I 269 TABLE 66 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN WOMEN CLOSED IN STATUS ”12" AND "l^-E" Item X2 P Coefficient of Contingency 8 Education 10 Age at onset 11 Years since onset 12 Impaired communication 16 Impaired intellectual processes 21 Time since last employment 27 Number of employers NS* NS NS NS NS NS NS *Not significant* Notes It was impossible to run Chi Square tests on all other items because of the low expected frequencies* 270 TABLE 67 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison (w12 V i , 15-E" Female) Group Frequency xidulK "12” "1£-E" ”12" ”15-E" 1 2 1 8 3 2 1 5 6 1 3 5) ) 6 5 1 h 8) 2) ) 3i 5 0 5 k 3 0 6 6 2 0 7 3) ) ) 7) ) 1 0 8 9) 8) \ 1 0 9 7 9I O I H I <n 0 5 1 Self 2 Other Individual 3 California Dept, of Employment 4. Doctor 5 School o Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 271 TABLE 6 8 (ITEM 6 ) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("12 /"15>-E" Female) Rank Group Frequency "1 2” ”1 2" "1£-E" 1 1 1 ) 22 2 ) 2 U S) $ 2 3 6 3 1 b 3 3j 1 0 5 5) 6 ) 0 0 ) ) 6 2) 2 ) 0 0 31 $ 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church £ Wages or savings b Public agenoy 5 Unemployment Insurance 6 Workmen's Compensation 272 TABLE 69 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison (n12V"l5-En Female Rank Group Frequency ”12" "15-E" "12” ”15-E" 1 9* 9* 11 3 2 8) ) 3! 6 l 3 1) S) 6 l k 3 1) ) 2) **i 7) ) 3 0 $ k\ 7) 2 0 6 2 0 7 5 1 0 8 2) ) 8) ) 0 0 9 6) 6) O I H I 0 5 1 Emotional ^Impaired extremities ”12" = 6 2 Mental retardation ”15>-E" - 2 Epilepsy "H Cardiac Back Impairment Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment I I 273 TABLE 70 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("12"/"l5-E" Female) Rank Group Frequency ”1 2" "1£-E" "12” "1£-E" 1 3 3 0 3 2 2 6 1 3 6 2) ) 3 0 k 1 1) *i 2 0 5 1 0 6 k 7) 0 0 7 7 0 18 0 k 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and Sales 3 2 Service 3 Agriculture and fishing j k or 5 Skilled 6 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled TABLE 71 (ITEM 2 1 * . ) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparison ("12V " 15-E" Female) Rank Group Frequency ”12" "l£-E" "12" "15-E" 1 2 3 8 2 2 3 7 6 1 3 1) ) 1) ) 2 0 k 6) 6) ) N 5) ) 2 0 $ 5) ) 0 0 6 0 0 7 7) 2) 0 18 0 3 Professional Clerical and sales Servioe Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 2 I 275 TABLE 73 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP REFERRAL Comparison (ff12 V n15-B" Male) Rank Group Frequency "1 2" "15-E" "1 2" "15-E" 1 3 3 19 11+ 2 2 2) ) 7) 18 7 3 7 ll+ 7 k 1 h 12 5 5 8 1 9 3 6 I f 6 2 7 6 9) 5 2 8 5 3 1+ 1 9 9 6 ) 0 87 1 1+2 1 Self 2 Other Individual 3 California Dept, of Employment Zf Dootor 5 School 6 Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 276 TABLE 75 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OF DISABILITIES Comparison ("12V"15-E" Male Rank Group Frequency "12” "15-E" "1 2” "15-E" 1 5 ) 5 25 12 ) 2 9*) 9* 25 10 3 7 1+ 10 9 1< - 3 8 3 5 6 6 ) 7 2 ) 6 1 1) 5 2 ) 7 8 8) 3 2 8 2) 2) 2 1 ) ) 9 3) 7) 2 1 87 I 4.2 1 Emotional ^-Impaired extremities ”12" = 18 2 Mental retardation "15-E" « = 7 £ Epilepsy ^5 q Cardiac 5 Back impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment 277 TABLE 76 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Compari son (" 12 /"15~E" Male) Rank Group Frequency "1 2" "l^-E" "1 2" "15-E" 1 6 6 33 17 2 $ 5 18 7 3 2 2 9 6 k 3 3 7 5 5 l 1) ) 7) 6 3 6 7 k 3 7 k 1* 2 79 1 l j . 2 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled I 278 TABLE 77 (ITEM 2i+) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparison ("1 2V" 1S“E" Male) Rank Group Frequency ”1 2" "l£-E" "1 2” "15-E” 1 6 6 28 15 2 5 5 21+ 8 3 2 3 8 6 1+ 3 2) ) 1) 6 4 5 k\ 3 k 6 7) 7) ) 3 2 7 1 k) 1 73 2 1 + 1 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled I I 279 TABLE 79 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP REFERRAL Comparison ("12V"15-E" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency ”1 2” "15-E" "12" "15-E" 1 2 3 26 Ilf 2 3 2) ) 7) 20 7 3 1 18 7 1* 7) ) 8) 1 I l f 6 5 If I l f 5 6 if) ) 8) ) 9 2 7 5) 5) ) 6 ) ) 9 2 8 6 7 2 9 9 9) 1 118 2 if7 1 Self 2 Other individual 3 California Dept, of Employment q. Doctor 5 School 6 Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 280 TABLE 82 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("12V"15-E" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency ”1 2" "1£-E" ”1 2" "1 5-E" 1 6 6 36 18 2 5 3 19 8 3 3 5 15 7 k 2 2 13 6 5 1 1) 8 3 6 7 7) 1* . 3 7 k k 2 97 1 l §6 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales Servioe Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled i I 281 TABLE 83 (ITEM 2k) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparison ("1 2"/"15-E" Male 8c Female) Rank Group Frequency "12" "15-E" ”12" "15-E" 1 6 6 30 15 2 5 5) \ 2k 8 3 2 3 I 16 8 k 3 1) ) 12 k 5 7) ) 2) 3 k 6 1) ) k) 7 3 3 7 If 3 91 2 1* Profeaslonal Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 2 I 2 82 TABLE 85 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP REFERRAL Comparison ("13V"1£-U" Female) Rank Group Frequency "13" "15-u" ”13" " 15-u" 1 6 6 9 6 2 9 9 6 5 3 1 8 3 if b I f 5) ) 3) 2 2 5 3) ) 1 2 6 5) ) 1 1 1 7 7) ) l) ) 1 1 8 8) 2) 1 1 9 2 I f 0 2l| 0 22 1 Self 2 Other individual 3 California Dept* of Employment I J . Doctor 5 School o Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 283 TABLE 86 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparlso: r t 13V"l5- Female) Group Frequency Rank 11 22 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 1 Wages or savings 4 Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance 6 Workmen's Compensation TABLE 87 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison ("13V"15-U” Female) Rank Group Frequency ”13" "15-u" "13" "15-u" 1 9*) 1 ) 9« 7 9 2 1 7 k 3 5 5) ) 3 2 k y S 2 2 5 6) 3) ) 2 2 6 2) ) 8) 1 2 7 7) ) 2 1 1 8 8) 6) ) 1 0 9 3 7) 0 2if 0 22 I 1 Emotional *Impaired extremities ”13” = 1 2 Mental retardation "15-U" = if Epilepsy 5 Cardiac Back impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment 285 TABLE 88 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("i3V"i5-tf" Female) Oroup Frequency rt&IlK ”13" "15-u" "13" "15-u" i 3) ) 6) 2 5 7 2 3 5 5 3 1 6) 7{ 1 2 I f 2) ) s! 7) 0 2 k \ 5) ) 1) 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 11 0 16 Professional Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 2 I 286 TABLE 89 (ITEM 2if) HANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparlson ("13V"l£-U" Female) Hank Group Frequency "13” "1 5-u" "13" "1$-U" 1 6 3 2 6 2 1) ) 2) ) 2 1 k 3 6) ) 1 2 k 3) 7) 1 2 $ 1 0 1 6 5) ) 5) ) 0 0 7 10 k) 0 $ 0 Professional Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 2 I 0 1 2 ^ op 5 6 or 7 8 or 9 287 TABLE 91 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP REFERRAL Comparison ("13V"1S-U" Male) Rank Group Frequency ”13" "1S-U" "13" "15-U" 1 7) ) 3) 7 *k 2 3 Ik 12 3 8 k 10 9 k k 8 7 8 5 2) ) 6 6 6 6 1) 1 6 5 7 6) ) 2 5 2 8 9) 9) ) 5 1 9 5 5) 3 70 1 59 1 Self 2 Other Individual £ California Dept, of Employment k Doctor % School 0 Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 288 TABLE 92 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("13V"15;-u" Male) Rank Group Frequency «i3« "1 5-u" "13” "1£-U" 1 1 1 2i f 18 2 6 6 20 17 3 5 k 11 10 k k 5 10 9 5 3 3 1 * . 5 6 2 2 1 0 70 59 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 1 Wages or savings 4. Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance 6 Workmen’s Compensation 289 TABLE 93 (ITEM 1$) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison (W13"/W15-Un Male) Rank Group Frequency ”13” ”15-0" "13" "15-TJ" 1 9* 9# 21 22 2 5 16 20 3 k k 11 k k 6 6) 6 3 ) 5 2) 1) 5 3 ) ) 6 7) 7) 5 3 ) 7 3) 3) 3 3 ) 8 1) 2 3 1 9 8 8 0 0 70 59 I 1 Emotional Impaired extremities ”13” = 13 2 Mental retardation "l^-TJ” * o Epilepsy T9 Cardiac Back impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment 290 TABLE 9i| (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("13V"15-U" Male) Rank Group Frequency "13" "15-U" "13" "i£-u" 1 6 6 17 27 2 5 5 12 9 3 2 3) ) 7) 10 k 7 8 5 5 3 2 5 3 6 1) 1) 1 1 7 1 5lf 1 51 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service q 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 k or 5 Skilled 6 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled 291 TABLE 95 (ITEM 2^) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparison ("13"/"15-U" Male) Rank Group Frequency ”13" "15-u" "13" "15-u" 1 6 6 14 25 2 5 5 10 10 3 1) ) 2) ) 7) 3 k 6 4 k\ 7) 4 3 5 4 3 6 3 2 3 2 7 4 1 0 39 1 50 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled I 292 TABLE 97 (ITEM £) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF REFERRAL Comparison ("13"/"15-XJ" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "13" "1£-U" "1 3” " 15-u" 1 7) ) 3) 7 15 16 2 3 15 3 6 6) ) 8) 12 k 8) ) 11 12 $ 9) k 11 9 6 1) ) 1) ) 9 6 7 k) 9) 9 6 8 2 2) ) 6 3 9 $ $) k 9k 3 81 1 Self 2 Other individual 3 California Dept, of Employment k Doctor s School 0 Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 293 TABLE 98 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison («i3*/"is-u" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "13" "1 5-u" ”13" "1 5-u" 1 1 1 32 29 2 k) 6)> 23 19 3 6 22 19 k 5 $ 11 9 5 3 3 5 5 6 2 2 1 H 0 81 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or ehurch 3 Wages or savings I j . Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance o Workmen’s Compensation TABLE 99 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison ("13V"15-u" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "13” "15-U" "13” "15-u" 1 9* 9# 28 31 2 5 5 19 22 3 k 1 13 7 k 1 10 6 5 6 3 8 5 6 2) ) 6 ) ) 6 3 7 7) 7) 6 3 8 3 2) ) 8) 3 2 9 8 1 9k 2 81 1 Emotional * Impaired extremities ”13" = II 4. 2 Mental retardation "15-U" = 10 Epilepsy I Cardiac Back impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment 29S TABLE 100 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("13V"15-U" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency ”13" "15-u" ”13" "1 5-u" 1 6 6 22 29 2 5 3) 12 10 ) 3 2) 2) 10 10 ) k 3) 5 10 9 5 7 7 8 7 6 1 1} 2 l ) 7 k k) 1 l 65 67 Professional Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 2 i 296 TABLE 101 (ITEM 2k) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF LONGEST JOB Comparison ("13 V"l5-tf" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "13" "15-u" "13" "15-u" 1 6 6 16 27 2 5 3 10 12 3 1) ) 2) 5 5 10 if 2 5 6 5 7) ) 3) 7 If 5 6 if if 3 7 if 1 1 o 2 65 Professional Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled I 297 TABLE 102 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN WOMEN CLOSED IN STATUS "13" AND "l^-E" Item X2 P Coefficient of Contingency 8 Education 11 Years since onset 12 Impaired communication 16 Impaired Intellectual processes 21 Time since last employment 27 Number of employers NS* NS NS NS NS NS ■*Not significant. Notes It was impossible to run Chi Square tests on all other items because of the low expected frequencies. 298 TABLE 103 (ITEM 5 ) RANK ORDERS OP M AJO R SOURCES OP REFERRAL Comparison (”13V" 15-En Female) Rank Group Frequency "13" "1£-E" "13" "15-E" 1 6 1 9 3 2 9 5) \ 6 l 3 1 6 ) 3 l k k 2) 2 0 ) 5 3) 3) 1 0 ) ) 6 5) U> 1 0 ) ) 7 7) 7) 1 0 ) ) 8 8) 8) 1 0 ) 9 2 9) 0 0 21* 5 1 Self 2 Other individual 3 California Dept, of Employment l \ . Doctor 5 School 6 Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 299 TABLE 10i* (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OF MAJOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("13V t t l5-E" Female) Rank Group Frequency ”13" "l£-E" "13” "1 5-E" 1 5) ) 1) 13 2 2 1 8 2 3 6 k 2 1 k 3 l\ 6 ) ) 1 0 5 S> ) 0 0 6 2) 2) • i ^ - 1 o 0 5 1 Family o p alimony 2 Friends o p church 3 Wages or savings q. Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance o WorkmenTs Compensation 300 TABLE 105 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS O P DISABILITIES Comparison Female) Rank Group Frequency "13" "15-E" "13" "15-E" 1 1) ) 9)* 9* 7 3 2 3! 50 7 1 3 3 1 k ? 6) 1) 2 0 5 2] ) ? 2 0 6 2) ) 1 0 7 7) ) 6 ) ) 1 0 8 8) 7) ) 1 0 9 3 8) 0 2k 0 $ I 1 Emotional 2 Mental retardation Epilepsy Cardiac Back impairment b Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment *Impaired extremities "13" "15-E" 1 2 3 301 TABLE 106 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("13 /H15**E” Female) Rank Group Frequency ”13” "1£-E" "13" "1 5-E" 1 3) 6 ! 3 3 2 6 5 1 3 1 1) ) 2) ) 1 0 2) ) 0 0 5 * 1 if) ) 0 0 6 5), 5) ) 0 0 7 7) 7) 0 11 0 if 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service 4. 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 | or 5 Skilled 6 o or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled 302 TABLE 107 (ITEM 2 1 * . ) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparison ("13V"1£-E" Female) Rank Group Frequency "13" "l£-E" "13" "1 5-E" 1 6 3 2 2 2 1) ) 2 ) ) 7 1 1 3 2 ) ) 1 0 k 3) 1) 6 ) ) 1 0 $ 7) ) 0 0 6 5) ) 0 0 7 k) k) 0 5 0 3 Professional Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 2 I 8 or 303 TABLE 110 (ITEM 6 ) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("13"/"15-E" Male) Rank Group Frequency ”13” "15-E" ”13" "1£-E" 1 1 5 2b 12 2 6 6) 20 11 ) 3 5 l) 11 11 k b 3 10 $ 3 k b 3 6 2 2 1 0 70 1*2 1 Family op alimony 2 Friends or church 3 Wages or savings b Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance 0 Workmen's Compensation 30k TABLE 111 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison ("13"/"15-E" Male) Rank Group Frequency "13" "15-E" "13" "15-E" 1 9* $ 21 12 2 5 9* 16 10 3 h k 11 9 k 6 3 6 3 $ 2) ) 7) l) 6 ) ) $ 2 6 S 2 7 3) ) 8) 3 2 8 1) 2 ) ) 3 1 9 8 7) 0 70 1 1*2 1 2 i 7 8 9 Emotional Mental retardation Epilepsy Cardiac Back impairment Amputation Visual Hearing Other impairment Impaired extremities "13" "15-E" 13 -I 20 305 TABLE 112 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("13V"i5-e" Male) Rank Group Frequency "13" "15-E” ”13" "15-E" 1 6 6 17 17 2 5 5 12 7 3 2 2 10 6 4 7 3 8 5 5 3 7) ) 1) 5 3 6 1) 4> 1 3 7 k 1 54 1 42 1 2 I 0 Professional 1 Clerical and sales 2 Service 3 Agriculture and fishing L. or 5 Skilled o or 7 Semi-skilled 8 or 9 Unskilled h c v j r*vcMrvo c^- 306 TABLE 113 (ITEM 24) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF LONGEST JOB Comparison ("I3t t /"15-B" Male) Rank Group Frequency ”13" "15-E" "13" "15-E” 1 6 6 Hi- 15 2 5 5 10 8 3 1) ) 2) ) 7) 3 h r 6 1* 1) ) 2) k k 5 k k 6 3 7) 1+) 3 2 7 k 0 39 2 0 Professional 1 Clerical and sales 2 Service 3 Agriculture and fishing L or 5 Skilled 0 or 7 Semi-skilled 8 or 9 Unskilled 307 TABLE 117 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison ("13 "/"15-E" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "13" "15-E" "13" "15-E" 1 9* 9*) £ ) 28 13 2 $ 19 13 3 k k 13 9 k 1 3 10 k 5 6 6 ) ) 8 2 6 2) ) l) ) 6 2 7 7) 8) 6 2 8 3 2 ) ) 7) 3 1 9 8 1 9^ 1 kl 1 Emotional «• Impaired extremities "13" » l i j . 2 Mental retardation "15-E" = 9 3 Epilepsy 2^ 4 Cardiac 5 Back Impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other Impairment 308 TABLE 118 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OF MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("13V"15-E" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "13" "15-E" "13" "1$-E" 1 6 6 22 18 2 5 3 12 8 3 2) ) 3) 5 10 7 k 2 10 6 $ 7 7) ) 8 3 6 1 1) 2 3 7 k k 1 6* 1 1*6 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-akilled Unskilled I 309 TABLE 1X9 (ITEM 2 l | . ) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparison ("13 /’ 'lfj-E" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "13" "1 5-E" "13” "15-E" 1 6 6 16 2 5 5) ) 3) 10 8 3 l) ) 5 8 k 2) 2) ) 5 b 5 7) ) 1) b b 6 3) 7 k 3 7 1* 1* 0 bb 2 1 2 I 0 Professional 1 Clerical and sales 2 Service 3 Agriculture and fishing | or 5 Skilled 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 8 or 9 Unskilled 310 TABLE 120 FACTORS DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN WOMEN CLOSED IN STATUS "15-U" AND "15-EW Item X2 P Coefficient of Contingency 2 Race S Education 9 Age at application NS* NS NS 21 Time since last employment 25> Length of longest Job NS NS ■»Not significant. Note: It was impossible to run Chi Square tests on all other items because of the low expected frequencies* 311 TABLE 121 (ITEM 5) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP REFERRAL Comparison ("15-U"/"15-E" Female) Rank Group Frequency "15-u" "15-E" "15-u" "15-E? 1 6 1 6 3 2 9 $) 6) 5 l 3 8 1 k 3) ) 5) 8) ) 2 0 5 2 0 6 1) ) 9) ) 1 0 7 2) ) 2] 1 0 8 7) 7) ) b) 1 0 9 b 0 22 0 5 1 Self 2 Other Individual 3 California Dept, of Employment q. Doctor 5 School o Bureau of Public Assistance 7 Insurance Agency 8 Public or private agency 9 Sheltered Workshop 312 TABLE 122 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison ("15-Un/"15-E" Female) Rank Group Frequenoy "l£-U" "1£~E" "l£-U" "1S-E" 1 1 1) 11 2 ) 2 k 5) 9 2 3 6 k 2 1 k 2) 2) 0 0 ) ) 5 3) 3) 0 0 ) ) 6 $) 6) 0 0 22 5 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 3 Wages or savings 1 J . Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance 6 Workmenfs Compensation 313 TABLE 123 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OF DISABILITIES Comparison ("15-U"/"15-E" Female) Rank Group Frequenoy "15-1 1" "15-E" "15-U" "15-E" 1 9* 9* 9 3 2 1 3) ) 5) k 1 3 3) k\ 2 1 k 1) ) 2) ) 2 0 5 1 5) ) 2 0 6 8) J) 6) ) 2 0 7 2 1 0 8 6 7) ) 0 0 9 7 8) 0 22 0 5 I 1 Emotional 2 Mental retardation Epilepsy Cardiac Back Impairment b Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment *Impaired extremities "15-U" "15-E" k 2 5 TABLE 12J+ (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP M O ST RECENT JOB Comparison ("15-U"/"15-E’ ! Female) Rank Group Frequency "1£-U" "1£-E" n1£-U" "15-E" 1 2 3 7 3 2 3 6 5 1 3 6) ) 2) ) 2 0 k 7) 7) ) 1) ) 2 0 5 1) ) 0 0 6 5) S 5) 0 0 7 0 16 0 J _=± Professional Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 0 2 1 I I or 5 6 or 7 8 or 9 315 TABLE 12£ (ITEM 2^) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparison ("15-U"/I ! 15-E" Female) Rank Group Frequency "15-U" "15-E" "15-U" "15-E" 1 3 3 6 2 2 2 7 k 1 3 6) 6) 2 0 ) ) 7) 2) 2 0 ) 5 1 1) 1 0 ) 6 U k) 0 0 ) ) 7 5) 5) 0 0 15 3 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service I j . 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 E or 5 Skilled o o or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled 316 TABLE 128 (ITEM 6) RANK ORDERS OP MAJOR SOURCES OP FINANCIAL SUPPORT Comparison (nl5-U"/"l5-E" Male) Rank Group Frequency "15- ■u" "15-E" "15-U" "1 5-E" 1 1 5 18 12 2 6 1) 6 ) 17 11 3 k 10 11 k 5 3 9 5 5 3 k 5 3 6 2 2 0 59 0 1+2 1 Family or alimony 2 Friends or church 3 Wages or savings I J . Public agency 5 Unemployment Insurance o WorkmenTs Compensation 317 TABLE 129 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OF KINDS OF DISABILITIES Comparison ("15-U"/"15-E" Male) Rank Group Frequency "15-u" "15-E" "15-U" "15-E" 1 9* 5 22 12 2 S 9* 20 10 3 b b b 9 b 1) ) 3) 6) ) 3 3 3 5 1) e! ) 3 2 6 3 2 7 7) 8) 3 2 8 2 2) ) l 1 9 8 7) I s O 1 O 1 b2 I 1 Emotional 2 Mental retardation Epilepsy Cardiac Back impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment ■»Impaired extremities "15-U" "15-E" 6 7 318 TABLE 130 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("lS-TJV^-E" Male) Rank Group Frequency "15-U" "15-E" "15-U" "15-E" 1 6 6 27 17 2 5 5 9 7 3 7) ) 2 5 6 k 3) 3 $ 5 5 2 7) ) 3 3 6 1) k) 1) 1 3 7 1 51 1 lf2 1 2 2 I 7 0 Professional 1 Clerical and sales 2 Service 3 Agriculture and fishing L or $ Skilled o or 7 Semi-skilled 8 or 9 Unskilled 319 TABLE 131 (ITEM 2k) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF LONGEST JOB Comparison ("15-U"/"1S-E" Male) Rank Group Frequency "15-U” "15-E" "15-U" "15-E" 1 6 6 25 15 2 5 5 10 8 3 3 3 6 6 k u ) 1) ) 3 k 5 7) 2) 3 k 6 2 7) 2 2 7 1 1 50 2 Ip- 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service I 4. 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 I or 5 Skilled o 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled 320 TABLE 135 (ITEM l£) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison ("l£.UV"l£-E" Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "15-U” "15-E" "15-U" "15-E" 1 9** 9*) ) 5 ) 31 13 2 22 13 3 1 k 7 9 k k 3 6 1+ $ 3 1) 6) ) 5 2 6 6) ) 3 2 7 7) 8) 3 2 8 2) ) 2) ) 2 1 9 8) 7) 2 81 1 1*7 I 1 Emotional *Impaired extremities "15-TJ" = 10 2 Mental retardation "15-E" s Epilepsy 19 Cardiac Back impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment 321 TABLE I36 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison (nl£-Un/"l£-E” Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "15-U" "15-E" "15-U" "15-E" 1 6 6 29 18 2 3> 2) 3 10 8 3 5 10 7 h 5 2 9 6 5 7 7) ) 7 3 6 1) 1*> 1) 1 3 7 I * 1 67 1 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales 3 2 Service 4. 3 Agriculture and fishing 5 | or 5 Skilled 0 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 7 8 or 9 Unskilled - v i crwp-w r u h 322 TABLE 137 (ITEM 2J+) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparison (B15-uV" 15-Et t Male & Female) Rank Group Frequency "15-U" "15-E" "15-U" "15-E” 1 6 6 27 15 2 3 31 5) 12 8 3 5 10 8 k 2 2) ) 6 1 + $ 7 1) i f 6 k 7 3 3 7 1 k 2 65 2 Mf 0 Professional 1 Clerical and sales 2 Service 3 Agriculture and fishing a or 5 Skilled 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 8 or 9 Unskilled 323 TABLE llfl (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison ("12" & "15-E"/ "13" & "15-T7" Female) Rank Group Frequency 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-U 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-U 1 9* 9* 16 2 1) 1 6 11 ) 3 8) 5 6 5 k 3 k 5 k) \ 8 2 3 6 ) 5) 2) 2 2 5 ) 7 7) 3) 2 2 8 6) 6) 0 2 ) 9 2) 7 0 1 36 1*6 I 1 Emotional 2 Mental retardation Epilepsy Cardiac Back impairment b Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment #Impaired extremities "12" & "15-E" = "13" & "15-U" = 8 13 3 2l (. TABLE l l } _ 2 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("12" & "15-E"/ Rank Group Frequency ”1 3" & "15-u" Female) 12 & 15-E 13 & 1 5-u 12 & 15-E 13 & 1 5-u 1 3 3 11 10 2 2) 6 ) 2) 6 ! 7 3 b 7 b 1 7 2 2 5 5 1 1 1 6 7) 5) 0 0 7 0 22 0 27 Professional Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled I 325 TABLE ll*3 (ITEM 2if) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparison ("12" & "15-E”/ "13" 8 c "15-U" Female) Rank Group Frequeney 12 8 c 15-E 13 8 c 15-U 12 8 c 15-E 13 8 c 15-U 1 3) 3 8 7 ) 2 2) 2 8 5 3 6) 6 2 k k J 1) 1) 2 2 ) 5 7 7) 1 2 6 k) 4) 0 0 ) ) 7 5) 5) 0 0 21 20 Professional Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 2 I I 326 TABLE l l f . 7 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison ("12" & "15-E"/ Rank Group Frequency "13" & "15-U" Male) 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-U 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-u 1 5 37 b3 2 9# 5 35 36 3 k 4 17 15 k 1 6 11 9 5 6 7 9 8 6 l l) ) 3) ) 7 6 7 3) ) 5 6 8 8) 2) 5 6 9 2 8 3 129 0 129 1 Emotional •frlmpalred extremities 2 Mental retardation "12" & nl£--En = 25 I Epilepsy "13" & "15-U" = 19 q. Cardiac Ip£ 5 Back impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment 327 TABLE II4 . 8 (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OF MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("12" & "15-E"/ Rank Group Frequency "13" & "15-U" Male) 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-U 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-U 1 6 6 50 2 5 5 25 21 3 2 2) ) 7) 15 13 h 3 12 13 5 1 3 9 10 6 7 1 ) k) 7 2 7 k 3 121 2 105 Prof essional Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 2 I 3 2 8 TABLE llf 9 (ITEM 2lf) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparison ("12" & "15-E"/ Rank Group Frequency "13" & "15-U" Male) 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-u 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-u 1 6 6 k3 39 2 5 5 32 20 3 3> 2) 3 12 9 k 7 12 7 5 7) ) 1) 4) 2 5 6 6 1 5 5 7 k 5 ill*. 3 89 1 2 I 0 Professional 1 Clerical, and sales 2 Service 3 Agriculture and fishing k or 5 Skilled 6 or 7 Semi-skilled 8 or 9 Unskilled 329 TABLE 153 (ITEM 15) RANK ORDERS OP KINDS OP DISABILITIES Comparison (**12" Sc "15-E"/ "13" & "1§-U" Male S c Female) Rank Group Frequency 12 & 15-E 13 S c 15-tJ 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-u 1 9* 9# ^9 59 2 5 39 * 4 - 1 3 k i j - 19 19 k 1) l 13 17 ) 5 7) 6 13 11 6 8 7 11 9 7 3) \ 3) \ 9 8 8 6) 2! 9 8 9 2 8 3 3 165 175 I 1 Emotional Impaired extremities 2 Mental retardation "12" & "l£-E" Epilepsy "13" & "15-U" __ Cardiac £7 ' p Back impairment 6 Amputation 7 Visual 8 Hearing 9 Other impairment 330 TABLE 1 5 1 + . (ITEM 22) RANK ORDERS OF DOT CODE OF MOST RECENT JOB Comparison ("12" & "15-E"/ Rank Group Frequency "13" & "15-U” Male & Female) 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-U 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-U 1 6 6 SU 51 2 5 5 26 21 3 3 3) ) 2) 23 20 k 2 19 20 5 1 7 11 15 6 7 1 7 3 7 k u 3 1 * 4 - 3 2 132 1 0 Professional 2 1 Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled I 331 TABLE 155 (ITEM 2k) RANK ORDERS OP DOT CODE OP LONGEST JOB Comparison ("12" & "15-E"/ Rank Group Frequency "13" & "15-U" Male & Female) 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-u 12 & 15-E 13 & 15-u 1 6 6 to to 2 5 5 32 20 3 3) ) 2) 3 20 16 k 2 20 11 5 1 7 7 9 6 7 1 6 7 7 k k 5 135 3 109 Professional Clerical and sales Service Agriculture and fishing Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled 1 2 I 8 or APPENDIX E COUNSELOR RANKING FORMS APPENDIX E COUNSELOR RANKING FORMS Copy to: List of Personnel If you could be persuaded to donate 10 minutes of your time (which I desperately hope you could), please complete the following form and return It to me by Friday, 2/28/6i j . . You need not sign your name, though it might be helpful if I should have any questions to ask you about your responses. Please do not discuss your responses with anyone else until after you have turned in your paper. Hopefully, Jean Palmer 333 OPINION SURVEY OP INTAKE DATA AS RELATED TO REHABILITATION Following are 3 groups of some of the data which we gather from DVR applicants at Intake, either directly or indirectly# Within each group are several items. Look over the 9 items in Group I (Personal-Social Data). Rank them from 1 - 9 (ON THE BASIS OP YOUR EXPERIENCE) in the order of their importance to successful vocational rehabilitation. 1 = most important to 9 " least important. Example: Sex 7 Race c t Marital Status____2 No. of Dependents 3 Source of Referral 9 Mai or* Source &£ Support 6 No. of Previous Applications Year's of Education h . Age at Application 5 Sometimes you may find it hard to decide which rank to give an item, but be sure to choose a rank for each one. I Sex__________ Race__________ Marital Status__________ No. of dependents Source of Referral Major Source of'Support No. of Previous Applications Year's or Education Age at Application II Please rank the 6 items in Group II (Disability Data) in the order of their importance to successful voca tional rehabilitation. (1 = most important to 6 ■ least important. Make your choice on the basis of your experience. Age at Onset of Disability__________ Years since 6nset itlnd of Disability Origin of Disability Age Disabled for Work Activity 335 III Now rank the 7 items in Group III (Vocational Data) 1 a most important, to 7 - least important. Time since Last Employment__________ Most decent Job Level Length of Moat Recent Job Length of longest job Level of longest Job Number of Employers No. of Breaks In Work ’ History of 1 Month or More IV Look back on the items in each group. Now rank (from 1 - 3) the groups in the order of their importance to successful vocational rehabilitation. 1 = most important, 3 * least important. Personal-Social Data_________ Disability faata Vocational t)ata If you would like to know the results of these ratings, please check here* __________ THANK YOU Jean Palmer BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Barry, Ruth, and Wolf, Beverly. Epitaph for Vocational Guidance. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Teachers College, 1 9 6 2. Goodman, Paul. Growing Up Absurd. New York: Random House, 1960« Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics In Psychology and Education" York, Pennsylvania: McGraw-Hill ' Book do., Inc., 195^* Herzberg, Frederick, Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. B. The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Leeper, Robert W., and Madison, Peter. Toward Understanding Human Personalities. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959* Miller, Delbert C., and Form, William H. Industrial Sociology. New York: Harper, 1951* Roe, Anne. The Psychology of Occupations. New York: John Wiley, 195b. Rosenberg, M. Occupations and Values. Glencoe, 111.: Illinois Free Press, 1957 • Ruesch, Jurgen, and Kees, Weldon. Non-verbal Communlcation. Berkeley: University of Cali fornia Press, 1956• Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Splences. York, Pennsylvania: MeGraw-Hi11 Book Co., Inc., 1956. Super, Donald E. The Dynamics of Vocational Adjust ment. New York: liar per and Bros., 19^2, 338 12. ________ • The Psychology of Careers. New York: Harper and Bros., l95?« 13. Wiener, Norbert. The Human Use of Human Beings. Garden City, New York: Doubieday and Co., Inc., 19^. l l j . . Wrenn, C. Gilbert. The Counselor In a Changing World. Washington, D. C.: American Personnel and Guidance Assoc., 19^2. 15* Wright, Beatrice A. Physical Disability: A Psycho logical Approach. New York: Harper and Bros., 1906. Parts of Series 16 . Adelphi College. Some Social Factors In Job Place ment and Community Life of the handicapped: Pinal Report of the Three-Year Study June '15. T3|jj 1'qgB. harden~dTty~. New'York,’ 17. Geliman, W. Work as a Psychologically Common Core for Social. Services: ^tie Workshop--A. Dynamic Rehabilitation Tool. Jewish Vocational Service, cET cago, Illinois. Monograph No. 2, 1959• 18. Glaser, Nathan M. An Employability Rating Scale for Handicapped Persons: The Workshop--A Dynamic Rehabilitation iloolJ Jewish Vocational Service, Chicago, Illinois. Monograph No. 2, 1959* 19* Graduate School of Social Work, University of Utah. The Influence of Emotional, Social, and. Physical Factors on Vocational Rehabilitation Adjustment in Utah. Montana, and Wyoming. Final Report. Salt Tafc""cfty, 1^T7 " ---- 20. Graduate School of Social Work, University of Utah. The Influence of Emotional, Social, and Physical Factors on Vocational Rehabilitation Actjusfemenb. Montana Preliminary 'Report, July 1, 1%9 to June 30, I95I 4.. Salt Lake City, May, 1959® 21. Graduate School of Social Work, University of Utah. The Influence of Emotional, Social, and Physical factors on Vocational Rehabilitation Adjustment. Wyoming Preliminary Report, July 1, 19^-9 bo June 30, 195^* Salt Lake City, April, £9 6 0. 339 2 2 . 23. 2l+. 2$. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Helstein, Ralph, Piel, Gerard, and Theobald, Robert. Joba, Machines and People; A Conversation. Center for the Study or Democratic Institutions, Santa Barbara, California, 19^* Hutchins, Robert M. What Kind of World? Division of U. S. into Two HatIons, Working and Jobless, Is Growing. Los Angeles Times, ^December 9, i9o3* Industrial Relations Center, University of Minne sota. Factors Related to Employment Success. Minnesota Studies In Vocational Rehabilitation: VII. Bulletin 2?, May, 1959* Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota. A Study of E S Applicants. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: VIII. Bulletin No. 28, September, 1959* Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota. The Application of Research Results. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: IX. Bulletin No. 29# November, 1959- Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota. A Definition of Work Adjustment. Minnesota Studies In Vocational Rehabilitation: X. Bulletin No. 30# May, i9 6 0. Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota. Attitudlnal Barriers to Employment. Minnesota Studies In Vocational Rehabilitation: XI. Bulletin No. 3 2, June, 1 9 6 1. Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota. Validity of Work Histories Obtained by Interview. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XII. Bulletin No. 3U 5 September, 19&1. Jewish Vocational Service of Chicago. A Scale of Employability for Handicapped Persona. OVR Research Project Ro'. 108, Fourth Progress Report, August 1, 19°0. Komisar, David D., Leonhardt, Harry L., and Weitz, Anne S. A Follow-up Study of Patients Discharged from a Community Rehabilitation Center. The Hartford Rehabilitation Center, Hartford, Conn. February, i9 6 0. 3^0 32* Masterman, Louis E. Psychological Aspects of Rehabilitation (Initial Status Studies!. Commu nity Studies, 1 nc., PublicatIon No • llo. Kansas City, Missouri, July, 1958. 33. Mead, Margaret. "Margaret Mead Answers Questions," Redbook, December, 19&3* Periodical Articles 3^. Auman, Fred A. "Retraining: How Much of an Answer to Technological Unemployment?" Personnel Journal, XLI (1 9 6 2), 505-507. 3£. Bancroft, Gertrude. "Consistency of Information from Records and Interviews," Journal of American Statistical Association, XXXV (1940), 377-81. 3 6. Beilin, Harry. "The Application of General Develop ment Principles in the Vocational Area," Journal of Counseling Psychology, II (1955)» 53-57^ 37. DeMann, Michael M. "A Predictive Study of Rehabili tation Counseling Outcomes," Journal of Counsel ing Psychology, X (1963), 3^0-^3~. 3 8. Dickinson, Carl. "Ratings of Job Factors by Those Choosing Various Occupational Groups," Journal of Counseling Psychology, VI (1958-)> 188-89. 39* Ehrle, Albert R. "Fallacies of Full Employment," Vocational Guidance Quarterly, XII (19&3)* 1-7. I 4. 0. Fisher, Seymour. "Sex Differences In Body Percep tion," Psychological Monograph, LXXVIII (I96I+). 1+1. Forer, Bertrand P. "Personality Factors in Occupa tional Choice," Educational and Psychological Measurement, III ( r i933)> 3&1-&&. 8.2. Friedlander, Frank. "Underlying Sources of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology, xlvii (1963), 2l| 6-5 0. I 4. 3 . Gellman, W. "Components of Vocational Adjustments," Personnel Guidance Journal, XXXI (1953)* $ 3^-39• 3 ia I 4J 4. , Hardin, Einar, and Hershey, Gerald L* "Accuracy of Employee Reports on Changes in Pay. ' 1 Journal of Applied Psychology, XLIV (i9 6 0), 2o9-73> 1 | . 5 . Harding, F. D*, and Battenberg, R. A. ’ ’Effect of Personal Characteristics on Relationships between Attitudes and Job Performance,’ ’ Journal of Applied Psychology, XLV (1 9 6 1), 1^2 8 -3 0. I 46. Hart, Dale J. , and Lifton, Walter M. ”0f Things to Comes Automation and Counseling,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXVII (1958), 282-8?“ . I 4. 7. Hirschfeld, Alexander H*, and Behen, Robert C. "The Accident Process, Part It Etiological Considera tions of Industrial Injuries," Journal of the American Medical Association, CLXDtXVI (I9 8 3), l j . 8. . ’ ’ The Accident Process, Part IIs Toward More Rational Treatment of Industrial Injuries," Journal of the American Medical Association, CLXXXVI (I9 6 3), 3 0 0-3 0 6. 1^9. Johnson, Wendell. "A Broader and Bolder Rehabilita tion Program." Journal of Rehabilitation, XXIX (1 9 6 3), I3-I 4. 0 . 50. Johnston, Denis P. "Uptrend in Workers* Education," Occupational Outlook Quarterly, VII (1 9 6 3), uccupt 51. Keating, Elizabeth, Paterson, D . G ., and Stone, C. H . "Validity of Work Histories Obtained by Interview," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXIV (1950), 1-5. 52. Kennedy, J. E., and 0* Neill, H. £. "Job Content and Workers* Opinions," Journal of Applied Psych- ology, XLII (1950), 372-75. 53* La Piere, Richard J. "Attitudes versus Actions," Sociological Forces, XIII (193^), 230-3 8. 5 i j . . Lesser, Marion S., and Darling, Robert C. "Factors Prognostic for Vocational Rehabilitation Among the Physically Handicapped," Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, XXXIV Ti%37, 73-Fi: ------------- ---- 3k2 £5>. Lipsett, Lawrence* ’ ’Social Factors In Vocational Development.” Personnel and Guidance Journal, xl (1 9 6 2), 5. 32^371 5 6. Lyman, E. ’ ’Occupational Differences in the Value Attached to Work,” American Journal of Sociology* LXI (1955), 13 8-1+1+. 57* McPhee, Wm. M., and Magleby, Frank L* "Success and Failure in Vocational Rehabilitation,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXVIII (i9 6 0), l*97-9~9. 58. Morse, Nancy E,, and Weiss, Robert S. ”The Function and Meaning of Work and the Job," American Sociological Review, XX (1955), 191-58. 59. Mosel, James N., and Cozan, Lee W. "The Accuracy of Application Blank Work Histories," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVI (1952), 3 8 5-6 9* 6 0. Motto, Joseph L. "Stability of Work Experience as a Predictor of Success In Terminal Vocational Training,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXVIII (19b0), ?£6-£3. 61. Murray, Evelyn. "Work: A Neglected Resource for Students," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLI (1962), 229-33. 62. Muthard, John E., and Jaques, Marceline E. "Barriers to Effective Rehabilitation: Counselor Opinion," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXIX (19ol), 7W-T5:---------------------- 6 3. Novis, Frederick W®, Marra, Joseph L., and Zadrozny, Lucien J. "Quantitative Measurement In the Initial Screening of Rehabilitation Potential," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXIX (i9 6 0), 262-6 9. ------------------------------- 61f. Novis, P. W., Marra, J. L., Rosse, A. A., and Tooles, W. B® "A Comparative Study of Methods Used in Evaluating Vocational Rehabilitation Potential." Personnel and Guidance Journal„ XL ( 1 9 6 1), 286-W* ----------------------- 6 5. Owens, William A®, Glennon, J. R®, and Albright, Lewis E. "Retest Consistency and the Writing of Life History Items," Journal of Applied Psvoh- oiogy. xlvi (1 9 6 2), 329-31. 6 6 . 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 7J+. 75. 76. 3^3 Parry, Hugh and Crossley, Helen M. ’ ’ Validity of Responses to Survey Questions," Public Opinion Quarterly, XIV (1950), 6l-80. Porter, Lyman W„ "A Study of Perceived Need Satis faction in Bottom and Middle Management Jobs," Journal of Applied Psychology. XLV (1 9 6 1), 1-10. . "Job Attitudes in Managements Perceived Deficiencies in Need Fulfillment as a Function of Job Level," Journal of Applied Psychology. XLVI (1 9 6 2), 375-6^. Rickard, Thomas E., Triandes, H. C., and Patterson, C. H. "Indices of Employer Prejudice toward Disabled Applicants,’ ’ Journal of Applied Psychology. XLVII ( 1 9 6 3), £5-55. Robinson, H. Alan, and Connors, Ralph P. "Job Satisfaction Researches of 1 9 6 1." Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLI (1 9 6 2), 2i J . 0-^b. Roe, Anne. "Early Determinants of Vocational Choice," Journal of Counseling Psychology, IV (1957), 212-17. Rusalem, H. "Placeability of Older Disabled Clients," Vocational Guidance Quarterly, X ( 1 9 6 1), 38^ X 1 Schaffer, R. H. "Job Satisfaction as Related to Need Satisfaction in Work," Psychological Monograph, #36^ (1953)* 29. Scott, Thomas B., and Stein, Carroll I. "An Index of Ease or Difficulty of Rehabilitation," Personnel and Guidance Journal., XXXIX ( 1 9 6 1), -------------------------------- Small, Leonard. "Personality Determinants of Voca tional Choice," Psychological Monograph. #351 (1953), 2 1. Stubbins, J. "The Relationships between Level of Vocational Aspiration and Certain Personnel Data," Genetic Psychology Monograph, XLI (1950), 77* Super, D. E. "A Theory of Vocational Development," American Psychology. VIII (1953), 18£-190. 31* 7®* , and Mowry, J. E., Jr. "Social and Personal Desirability in the Assessment of Work Values," Educational and Psychological Measure ment. XXII (1962), 715-19. 79* Thoreson, Richard W. "Disability Viewed in Its Cultural Content," Journal of Rehabilitation, XXX (19&J.), 12-1 3. 80, Turner, William H. "Working with the Socially Handicapped," Journal of Rehabilitation, XXX (196^), 29-3 2. 81. Weil, Edmund. "Work Blocks The Role of Work in Mental Health," Psychoanalysis and Psycho analytic Review, jCLVI (l95>9)7 Pari I, u.l- 6Iu 82« . "Work Block: The Role of Work in Mental Health," Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Review, XLV I W£<?77 ?art ” 83* Weiss, David J., and Dawes, Rene V. "Validation of Factual Interview Data," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLIV (i9 6 0), 3dT-8£. 8i j . . Weiss, Robert S., and Kahn, R. L. "Definitions of Work and Occupation," Sociological Problems, VIII (i9 6 0), 1^2. 85. Wernlmont, Paul F, "Re-evaluation of a Weighted Application Blank for Office Personnel." Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVI, No. 6 ( 1 9 6 2), I 4.I 7-I9. Public Documents 8 6. California State Department of Education, Vocational Rehabilitation Service. Vocational Rehabilita tion, An Investment in Human Dignity, Annual Report, 19b£® 8 7. California State Department of Education, Vocational Rehabilitation Service. A Special Report on Cases Closed 1960-6 1, Sacramento', I961. 8 8. California State Department of Education, Vocational Rehabilitation Service. Cas<s Load Surveys A Survey of Vocational Rehabilitation Cases in" Active toad,, December I960, Sacramento. 1961. 314-5 89* California State Department of Education, Vocational Rehabilitation Service. Statistical Report for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1980- June 30» 19^1, Sacramento’ , 1961 • 90. Federal Security Agency, Social Security Administra tion, Bureau of Employment Security. Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, D. C.: U. &. Government Printing Office, 1914-9• 91. Felton, Jean S., Spender, C., and Chappel, J. Work Relationships of the Physically Impaired in a Tjfaltiple Disability Workshop and in StandarcT* Industry, tt. S. Department of Health, Education, and Weir sire, Special Project 110. Washington, D. C.i U. S. Government Printing Office, September 1959* 92. Gray, James T. Personality Needs in Occupations: A Review of the literature, Report of Workshop on the Dynamic Concept of the Meaning of Work. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1959. 9 3. Hart, Frank E. Summary of Monthly Workload Reports (R-100) of the Total Caseload of PVR for bne First Half of lQb3-bin California Department of Rehabilitation Program Planning and Development Research and Statistics Section, SR-12-61}.. April 2^, I96I 4.. 9^. Holt, James M. Development of a Vocational Rehabil itation Potential Rating £cale Based on Personality Variables, office of Vocational Rehabilitation, tf. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, OVR Research Grant, No. RD-283-58, Progress Report, October $1, 1958 to October 31* 1959* 9 5. . Development of a Vocational Rehabilitation Potential Rating Scale Based on Personality Variables, tos Angeles Orthopaedic Foundation, OVR Research Grant No. RD-2Q3-58, October 3 1, 1958 to October 3l» 1959* Dos Angeles, California. 9 6. Neff, Walter S. Automation^ Effect on the Handi- c apped Worker" tf. S. Dept, of Health, Educat I on and Welfare,"Vocational Rehabilitation Adminis tration. Rehabilitation Record, Vol. IV, No. 6 Washington; U. S. Government Printing Office, 196 3. 3^6 97* Schofield, Ralph A. The Occupational Significance of Differential Values. Attitudes, and Role Aspirations. . Report or Workshop on the Dynamic Concept of the Meaning of Work. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1959* 9 8. Soar, Robert S., etal. An appraisal of Critical Differences between Vocationally Well-Adjusted Rehabilitated and flon-RehabllitablLe Older MenT Grant s£-i85» dtffice of Vocational ftehabilita- tlon, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Washingtons U. S. Government Printing Office, 1959. 9 9. State University of Iowa College of Education. Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Proceedings of the Conference on Pi'e-Vocational Activities at Iowa City. Iowa. Washington: Government Printing Office, April, i9 6 0. 100. U. S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. Follow-Up Study on O.A.S.I. Referrals. Fifteenth Guidance and Training Program Workshop, May 21-25, 19&2. 101. . Report of Proceedings of Thirteenth Annual Workshop on Cruidance, Training, anc[ Placeme"nt, Part II. Washington: tf. S. Govern ment Printing Office, i9 6 0. 102. . Report of Proceedings of Fourteenth Annual Workshop on (j-uldance, Training, and Place* ment, Part"II. Washington: u. S. Government Printing Office, 19&1. 103. Wirtz, Willard W. Manpower Research and Training under the Manpower Development and Training Act: A Report by the Secretary of LaborT Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, March, I96I 4. . 10k. . The Challenge of Jobless Youth. Presi- dent’s Committee on "£outh Employment. Washing ton: U. S„ Government Printing Office, April, 1963. 10£. 106. 107* 108. 109* 110. 1 1 1. 3l<-7 Unpublished Materials Buhler, Charlotte. "Questionnaire on Oo&ls and Fulfillments." Report to the Los Angeles Society of Clinical Psychologists, 19&3* Echols, Prank H., Sr. "A Survey to Determine the Significance of Vocational Rehabilitation Services in Work Adjustment of Discharged Tuberculosis Patients." Dissertation Abstract, 1962. Ehrle, R. A. "The Predictive Value of Biographical Data in Vocational Rehabilitation." Disserta tion Abstract, 1 9 6 1. Haber, Wilfred. "The Contribution of Selected Variables to Success or Failure in a Vocational Rehabilitation Evaluation." Dissertation Abstract, i9 6 0. Hutchins, Robert M., President, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. Personal Letter, Santa Barbara, California, December 19» 19^3* Newstrom, Charles N. "An Outcome Study of Emotion ally Disturbed and Physically Disabled Veterans Rehabilitated at the Professional Level of Education." Dissertation Abstract, 1 9 6 2. Palmer, Jean. "A Survey of Social Contact Needs of Pomona 0AS Recipients." Unpublished Master Ts thesis, Long Beach State College, 195&*

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Four-Year Follow-Up Of Educationally Disadvantaged Preschool Children, Analyzing Home Environment Variables Facilitating Achievement

PDF

Ethnic Group Differences In Certain Personal, Intellectual, Achievement, And Motivational Characteristics

PDF

Librarians' Perceptions Of Librarianship

PDF

Creativity In Children: A Study Of The Relationship Between Temperament Factors And Aptitude Factors Involved In The Creative Ability Of Seventh Grade Children With Suggestions For A Theory Of C...

PDF

Reward Expectancy Strength As Related To The Magnitude Of Frustration In Children

PDF

Sex-Role Preferences Of Early Adolescents In Relation To Adjustment

PDF

A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Critical Factors Related To Achievement And Underachievement Of High School Students

PDF

An Analysis Of The Selection Criteria For Assignment Of Students To Advanced Placement Classes In The Los Angeles Unified School District

PDF

Selected Characteristics Of A Children'S Individual Test Of Creativity

PDF

The Relation Of Sense Of Humor To Creativity, Intelligence, And Achievement

PDF

A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Significant Attitudinal Factors Related To Three Levels Of Academic Achievement Of Seventh Grade Students

PDF

A Study Of Delinquency Among Urban Mexican-American Youth

PDF

The Relation Of Evaluative Attitudes To Traits Of Introversion And Extraversion

PDF

The Relationship Of Father-Absence, Socio-Economic Status, And Other Variables To Creative Abilities In Fifth-Grade Boys

PDF

Rigidity Factors And Value Choices

PDF

A Comparison Of The Values Of High And Low Creative Seventh Grade Students In Selected Junior High Schools In The Los Angeles District

PDF

Positive And Negative Verbal Reinforcement In The Conditioning Of The Verbal Behavior Of Adolescent Underachieving Delinquents With Dependent, Neutral, And Aggressive Stimuli

PDF

A Factor Analytic Study Of Tests Designed To Measure Reading Ability

PDF

Differences Between Cues In Effectiveness As Retrieval Aids

PDF

An Empirical Study On The Differential Influence Of Self- Concept On The Professional Behavior Of Marriage Counselors

Asset Metadata

Creator Palmer, Jean Deeds (author)

Core Title The Relationship Of Personal Data Items To Vocational Rehabilitation

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Educational Psychology

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 Metfessel, Newton S. (committee chair), McDonagh, Edward C. (committee member), Warters, Jane (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-175866

Unique identifier UC11359675

Identifier 6510104.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-175866 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6510104.pdf

Dmrecord 175866

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Palmer, Jean Deeds

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