University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An Investigation Of Changes In Knowledge And Attitudes Of Counselor-Trainees During The Course Of An Ndea Guidance Institute And Their Relation To Counseling Competence

(USC Thesis Other)

An Investigation Of Changes In Knowledge And Attitudes Of Counselor-Trainees During The Course Of An Ndea Guidance Institute And Their Relation To Counseling Competence

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content T h is d isse r ta tio n has been 65— 3101
m icr o film ed ex a ctly a s r e c e iv e d
BENO IT, R obert B ryan, 1 9 2 4 -
AN INVESTIGATION O F CHANGES IN KNOWLEDGE
AND ATTITUDES O F CO UNSELO R-TRAINEES DURr-
ING THE COURSE O F AN NDEA GUIDANCE
INSTITUTE AND THEIR RELATION TO COUNSELING
C O M PETEN CE.
U n iv e r sity of Southern C a lifo rn ia , E d .D ., 1964
E ducation, p sych ology
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
AN INVESTIGATION OF CHANGES IN KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES
OF COUNSELOR-TRAINEES DURING THE COURSE OF AN
NDEA GUIDANCE INSTITUTE AND THEIR RELATION
TO COUNSELING COMPETENCE
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Education
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
by
Robert Bryan Benoit
August 1964
This dissertation, written under the direction
of the Chairman of the candidate's Guidance
Committee and approved by all members of the
Committee, has been presented to and accepted
by the Faculty of the School of Education in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Education.
D a te August*. .1.9.64..................................
D ean
G uidance C om m ittee
Chairm an
i a J
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The eventual completion of this project
required the overcoming of a number of obstacles,
the most formidable of which was myself. That is
why the encouragement, understanding, and support
shown by those close to me means so much at this
time.
tty deepest debts of gratitude are to my
wife, Betty, whose faith in me never wavered, and
to Earl Carnes--friend as well as colleague.
Special thanks go to Ken Hopkins and Bob
Uzgalis, who donated their time and prodigious
talents to create the program for the Semantic
Differential.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................ ii
LIST OF TABLES......................... v
Chapter
I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM..................... 1
Introduction
Purpose
Statement of the Problem
Hypotheses
Operational Definitions
Procedure
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................... 10
Philosophical Background of the Problem
Review of Pertinent Research
Summary
III. PROCEDURE.................................... 60
Overview
The Data Gathering Process
The Sample Population
The Problem of the Criterion
Description of an NDEA Guidance and
Counseling Institute
Rationale for the Use of the Semantic
Differential Technique
iii
Chapter
Page
The Semantic Differential as a Measure of
Meaning
Constructing, Administering, and Scoring of
the Semantic Differential
The Semantic Differential as a Measure of
Attitude
Reliability
Validity
The NDEA Comprehensive Examination in
Counseling and Guidance
IV. FINDINGS.................................... 115
Knowledge
Differences in Academic Information between
Groups
Attitudes
Attitudes of the Total Group
Attitudes of Males and Females
Attitudes of Separate Institutes
Attitudes of High and Low Ranked Groups
Relationships between Knowledge, Attitudes,
and Rankings
Summary of Findings
V. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS...................... 180
Changes in Knowledge
Changes in Attitude
Attitudes of Ranked Groups
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Competence
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................... 194
The Problem
Procedure
Testing of Hypotheses
Conelusions
APPENDIX.......................................... 205
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................... 322
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Differences between Pre- and Post-Achievement
Test Scores plus Resulting t Values......... 116
2. Differences in Pre- and Post-Achievement Test
Scores plus Resulting t Values for Institutes
A and B .................................... 120
3. Differences in Pre- and Post-Achievement Test
Scores plus Resulting t Values for Institutes
A and c ....................................................................................... 121
4. Differences in Pre- and Post-Achievement Test
Scores plus Resulting t Values for Institutes
A and D .................................... 122
5. Differences in Pre- and Post-Achievement Test
Scores plus Resulting t Values for Institutes
B and.C .................................... 123
6. Differences in Pre- and Post-Achievement Test
Scores plus Resulting t Values for Institutes
B and.D ................ 124
7. Differences in Pre- and Post-Achievement Test
Scores plus Resulting t Values for Institutes
C and.D .................................... 125
8. Values of t for Differences in Total Pre- and
Posttest Raw Scores among Institutes .... 126
v
Table Page
9. Values of t for both Pre- and Posttest
Differences between Means for High and Low
Ranked Groups on the NDEA Comprehensive
Examination................................ 128
10. Changes in NDEA Comprehensive Test Score Means
between September and June Testing Dates for
High and Low Ranked Groups................ 131
11. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for the Total Group................ 138
12. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for the Male Group................. 142
13. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for the Female Group............... 143
14. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for Institute A ................... 147
15. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for Institute B ................... 148
16. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for Institute C ................... 150
17. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for Institute D ................... 151
18. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for High Ranked Group............. 154
19. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for Low Ranked Group............... 155
20. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for High Ranked Males............. 161
21. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for Low Ranked Males............... 162
Table Page
22. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for Higfr Ranked Females............ 164
23. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for Low Ranked Females . .......... 165
24. Significant t Values between Mean Factor
Scores for the High Knowledge High Ranked '
Group...................................... 172
#
25. Significant t Values between Mean Factor Scores
for the High Knowledge Low Ranked Group . . . 173
26. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the Total
Group ........................ 207
27. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the Total
Group...................................... 209
28. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for the Total Group.......... 211
29. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the Male
Group...................................... 213
30. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the Male
Group...................................... 215
31. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the
Female Group........... .................. 217
vii
Table Page
32. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the
Female Group . . ........................
33. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for the Male Group ..........
34. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for the Female Group ........
35. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for Institute A
36. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for Institute A
37. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for Institute A ..............
38. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for Institute B
39. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for Institute B
40. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for Institute B ..............
41. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for Institute C
42. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for Institute C
219
221
223
225
227
229
231
233
235
237
239
• • •
Vlll
Table Page
43. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for Institute C .............. 241
44. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for Institute D 243
45. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for Institute C 245
46. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for Institute D .............. 247
47. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the High
Ranked Group .............................. 249
48. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the High
Ranked Group .............................. 251
49. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the Low
Ranked Group.................. 253
50. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the Low
Ranked Group .............................. 255
51. Values of t between Pretest Mean Factor Scores
of High and Low Ranked Groups............... 257
52. Values of t between Posttest Mean Factor Scores
of High and Low Ranked Groups............... 259
53. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for the High Ranked Group ... 261
ix
Table Page
54. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for the Low Ranked Group ... 263
55. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the High
Ranked Male Group.......................... 265
56. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the High
Ranked Male Group.......................... 267
57. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the Low
Ranked Male Group ................ ..... 269
58. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the Low
Ranked Male Group .................... 271
59. Values of t between Pretest Mean Factor Scores
of High and Low Ranked Male Groups......... 273
60. Values of t between Posttest Mean Factor Scores
of High and Low Ranked Male Groups......... 275
61. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for the High Ranked Male Group 277
62. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for the Low Ranked Male Group . 279
63. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the High
Ranked Female Group ........................ 281
64. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the High
Ranked Female Group ........................ 283
x
Table Page
65. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the Low
Ranked Female Group ........................
66. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for the Low
Ranked Female Group ........................
67. Values of t between Pretest Mean Factor Scores
of High Ranked and Low Ranked Female Groups .
68. Values of t between Posttest Mean Factor Scores
of High Ranked and Low Ranked Female Groups .
69. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for the High Ranked Female
Group ......................................
70. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for the Low Ranked Female Group
71. Values of t between Pretest Mean Factor Scores
of High Ranked Male and Female Groups ....
72. Values of t between Posttest Mean Factor Scores
of High Ranked Male and Female Groups ....
73. Values of t between Pretest Mean Factor Scores
of Low Ranked Male and Female Groups ....
74. Values of t between Posttest Mean Factor Scores
of Low Ranked Male and Female Groups ....
75. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for High
Knowledge, High Ranked Groups ..............
285
287
289
291
293
295
297
299
301
303
305
xi
Table Page
76. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for High
Knowledge, High Ranked Groups .............. 307
77. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Pretest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for High
Knowledge, Low Ranked Group................ 309
78. Matrix of Intragroup t Test Values between
Posttest Factor Score Means of Evaluative,
Potency, and Activity Factors for High
Knowledge, Low Ranked Group ................ 311
79. Values of t between Pretest Mean Factor Scores
of High Knowledge, High Ranked and High
Knowledge, Low Ranked Groups .............. 313
80. Values of t between Posttest Mean Factor Scores
of High Knowledge, High Ranked and High
Knowledge, Low Ranked Groups.............. 315
81. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for the High Knowledge, High
Ranked Group . .......................... 317
82. Values of t between Pre- and Posttest Mean
Factor Scores for the High Knowledge, Low
Ranked Group .............................. 319
xii
CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
In 1957, Barry and Wolf reviewed the literature in
the guidance-personnel field for the purpose of objective
analysis and understanding of contemporary problems facing
the profession. Among these were the "twin" issues of
selection of trainees and subsequent effects of training.
At the time, the authors felt that:
Perhaps the most widely discussed issues in
guidance-personnel training today center around
the problem of selection of students. There has
been only the most general delineation of what
attitudes, abilities, and attributes a good guid
ance -personnel worker should have.
As Mathewson points out, "The best we can say
is that the guidance professional should have an
agreeable manner, good judgment, learning ability,
analytical and integrative power, tact, emotional
stability, personal integrity, ability in oral
expression, and a non-dominative disposition."
Such lists vary, and there is no solid research
basis for any of them. (7:92)
1
2
Regarding the effects of training programs, it was
their view that:
Guidance-personnel trainers have done no bet
ter and no worse than their fellow educators in
attempting to discover the effects of their train
ing programs. There is no evidence in the guid
ance-personnel literature that anyone has attempted
to do more than describe an ongoing training pro
gram or collect student opinions of courses within
a program or, at most, evaluate a part of a train
ing program. (7:93)
. . . complete evaluation might constitute the
initial step toward resolution of issues in con
tent, methodology, and selection. (7:93)
Iheir opinion seemingly was that these two impor
tant issues had received but little attention, and that
greater knowledge of training effects was a needed step
toward resolving the related issue of selecting those
people who should be given training.
Four years later, Leona Tyler discussed the same
two issues. It appears that they were still ubiquitous and
still unresolved.
It is generally agreed that there are personal
characteristics related to counseling success, but
just what these characteristics are is not so
generally agreed. The research on this question
that has been done so far has not settled the
issue.
The doubtful issue with regard to selection
on the basis of personality qualities is the ex
tent to which traits can be modified during train
ing for the profession. Each personality shows
both stability and change as the months and years
pass. If we could be sure which characteristics
of an Individual are likely to change under favor
able circumstances, we could deal with selection
problems more intelligently. (74:245, 247)
The intervening years have apparently furnished
additional information, but either not enough or of the
right kind, to enable counselor educators to resolve the
selection issues. And, as Tyler points out, changes which
can be assessed only through training evaluation must be
taken into account.
In spite of the inconclusiveness of available
research data, however, Tyler seems to feel that there are
two requirements essential for counselors. One is the
potential to grasp abstract concepts at the training level
in question, and the second, a "basic minimum of emotional
stability." Furthermore, she is quite definite in stating
which of the two requirements she considers to be the more
important:
The qualities most essential for counselors
are the basic attitudes that make it possible to
accept and understand other people. These are
difficult to evaluate with any precision and are
to some extent subject to change with experience.
(74:247)
Summarizing Tyler's position, there is a rather
definite cut-off limit with regard to academic ability,
plus certain basic attitudes toward people, which must
exist in some favorable combination in order for an indi
vidual to function effectively as a counselor. The latter
of these two is, to her, the more important, and may or may
not be modifiable through training. As she mentioned,
however, there is no general agreement on this issue.
Lee Joslin, in his 1962 doctoral study, took a
similar, yet subtly different, view. He felt that his
findings indicated that the subject matter knowledge of a
counselor should be used as an indication of his potential
for counseling competence, but that this potential would be
realized only if the training included adequate opportunity
for the trainee to eliminate or change attitudinal factors
which might interfere with his counseling.
The results do suggest, however, that the level
of knowledge becomes more significant when the
counselor-in-training has the opportunity to
reduce or eliminate the attitudinal or emotional
factors which prevent him from attaining greater
competence. (39:131)
The "subtle difference" referred to regarding these
two opinions is this: since Tyler feels that attitudes are
more important to the counselor, then favorable attitudes
might possibly, in her view, compensate for minimal grasp
of appropriate abstract concepts and facts (knowledge of
the field). Joslin might not concur, since he feels that
potential is determined by level of knowledge. He sees
favorable attitudes as crucial, but only in one who pos
sessed a high degree of potential (knowledge of the field).
It can be seen that since Barry and Wolf wrote
their review, researchers have been active, spurred to a
great extent by National Defense Educational Act (herein
after referred to as NDEA) Counseling and Guidance Insti
tutes which have made counselor-trainee populations readily
available. Such studies as Joslin's have done much to
sharpen the originally broad issues into specific, testable
hypotheses. While differences of opinion remain, the
intervening research now makes it possible to focus more
sharply on these differences and plan new research to test
the resulting hypotheses.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to provide informa
tion useful in helping to resolve the issue referred to
above. If more were known about the relationships obtain
ing between knowledge, attitudes, and rated competence,
plus their amenability to the influence of training, more
efficient methods of selection and training of personnel
might be possible.
Additional information regarding the knowledge and
attitudes related to competence is essential. It is also
crucial to know whether these attributes must be in evi
dence at the beginning of training, or whether it might be
expected that counselor educators could "train in" these
attributes. There is evidence in the literature which sug
gests the former.
More specifically, this study was concerned with
the interrelationships among level of didactic information,
the nature of attitudes toward certain concepts related to
counseling, and rated competence as a counselor. It might
be differently stated as the relationship between what a
good counselor knows and what a good counselor is. An
important finding of the study would be an answer to the
question of whether appropriate attitudes are sufficient,
or whether these attitudes must exist in combination with a
high level of knowledge of the field.
Questions to be answered:
1. Do counselor-trainees exhibit significant
academic growth during the course of an NDEA
Guidance Institute?
2. Do counselor-trainees show significant changes
in attitudes during the course of an NDEA
Guidance Institute?
3. What is the relationship among knowledge about
guidance and counseling, attitudes, and rat
ings of counseling effectiveness?
4. What attitudes are characteristic of counselor-
trainees rated as highly effective?
5. Were these attitudes also characteristic of
them at the beginning of training?
6. Holding information about guidance and counsel
ing constant, are there significant differences
in attitude between high rated and low rated
counselor-trainees?
7. What inter-Institute differences are there with
regard to each of these questions?
Statement of the Problem
This study has attempted to determine (1) the ex
tent of changes in both knowledge of the guidance and coun
seling field, and attitudes occurring in a combined group
of counselor-trainees during an NDEA Guidance Institute;
(2) whether or not there are significant relationships
among knowledge, attitudes, and rated effectiveness as a
counselor; (3) whether or not there are significant differ-
ences in attitudes between high rated and low rated coun
selor-trainees having superior knowledge of the field; and,
if so, (4) whether or not these attitudes were in evidence
at the beginning of training.
Hypotheses
1. There will be no relationship between either
pretest or posttest scores on the NDEA Compre
hensive Examination and rated effectiveness at
the conclusion of training.
2. There will be no relationship between either
pretest or posttest attitude scores on the
Webb-Harris Semantic Differential Test and
rated effectiveness at the conclusion of train
ing.
3. Those counselors having superior knowledge of
the guidance and counseling field who were
rated as most effective by Institute staff will
show no significant difference in attitudes
from those counselor-trainees having superior
knowledge of the field who were rated as least
effective.
9
4. In the event the previous hypothesis is found
to be untenable, the attitudes characterizing
high rated counselors having superior knowledge
of the field will have shown no change from
the beginning of training.
Operational Definitions
Brief operational descriptions of certain crucial
concepts are presented at this time. Each of these con
cepts will be dealt with in detail in Chapter III.
Knowledge of the guidance and counseling field.--
this term will be taken to mean the score obtained on either
of two administrations of the NDEA Comprehensive Examina
tion.
Attitudes.--This term will be taken to mean scores
obtained on either of two administrations of the Webb-
Harris Semantic Differential Test.
Counseling competence.--This term will be taken to
mean the rank assigned to a counselor-trainee, at the con
clusion of the 1961-62 academic year, by appropriate per
sonnel of the four NDEA Guidance Institutes cooperating in
this study.
Procedure
A combined group consisting of the total institute
enrollment of four different universities conducting NDEA
Guidance and Counseling Institutes was studied for purposes
of this investigation. The total number of enrollees
involved amounted to 119 people. Those students enrolled
in the regular counselor education programs at these uni-
versities were not included in the study.
The entire group of 119 people was administered the
NDEA Comprehensive Examination and the Webb-Harris Semantic
Differential test both before and after the Institute
training course. All Institutes were academic year Insti
tutes, beginning in September of 1961, and ending in June
of 1962. At the conclusion of training, Institute Direc
tors and Supervisors ranked their counselor-trainees using
a criterion of predicted on-the-job effectiveness as public
school counselors.
Appropriate statistical treatment was then given
the resulting data. Results were discussed, summarized,
and conclusions drawn.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Philosophical Background of
the Problem
Introduction.--It has been the purpose of this
investigation to identify some of the relationships obtain
ing among counselors' knowledge of the professional field,
the attitudes they display, and their competence as coun
selors. Also, it has been an attempt to establish the
impact of the training process upon them as persons.
The issue at point has been described by Arbuckle
when he asked, in effect, what is more important in coun
seling: what one knows or what one is able to do with what
one knows?
Rationale of the chapter.--A statement made by
Barry and Wolf has some important implications for this
study, or any study which tries to evaluate a course of
11
12
training:
Fundamental to the development of any field is
the way in which the people working in that field
are trained fo.r their jobs. Training helps to
formulate philosophy, to determine methods by
which that philosophy is Implemented, and to cre
ate attitudes toward the field. (7:80)
Analysis of this opinion suggests that what the
authors are saying is that philosophy determines practice
in counselor education, and practice in counselor education
in turn influences philosophy. If this view of training is
accepted, then any evaluative study must include an explor
ation of the philosophical bases for the training methods
employed as well as an evaluation of their impact.
In order for the field to make full use of the
findings of a study involving the evaluation of training
effects, the philosophical thought giving rise to the issue
in question must at least be identified and made as explic
it as possible.
It might be said that a mark of the maturity of any
professional field is the constant struggle to develop an
explicit philosophy, or perhaps philosophies, in order that
such thinking may be constantly examined and modified as
new research findings become available.
An evaluation study, then, has both philosophical
and practical implications. For fullest value, philosoph
ical thought relating to the problem under investigation,
as well as previous research findings, must be explored. It
is the purpose of this chapter to deal with both.
Theoretical views relating to the problem.--The
problem under investigation here appears and reappears
frequently in the counseling literature, never quite in
the same form, often implicit, but the same issue nonethe
less .
It manifests itself as practitioner versus scien
tist (56), cognitive-conative dimensions (11), persons or
science (63), counselees or students (4), objectivity-
subjectivity balance (13), head and heart (83), and in
various other ways of describing the same phenomenon.
The basic concern seems to be with the nature of
the counseling function and the precise way in which
counselors should behave while carrying out this function.
There is apparently a "Jekyll and Hyde" aspect to being a
counselor. In the present case, knowledge versus attitudes,
which will predominate? Which should predominate? Can
both Jekyll and Hyde function together?
Some of the questions arising from this area of
1A
thinking which seem to have import for the training of
counselors would seem to be much like the following:
1. When a counselor works with an individual,
does he implement the knowledge he possesses,
does he implement basic attitudes, or does he
implement some combination of both?
2. What is the role of knowledge about counseling
in the carrying out of the counseling function?
Is it that the acquiring of this knowledge has
an influence upon the basic attitudes of the
counselor?
3. Must knowledge and "certain" attitudes exist
together in order for one to counsel effec
tively? Can a relative "ignoramus" still meet
the demands of the counseling situation?
A. Even if knowledge makes little contribution to
actual counseling success, do we still want it
for purposes of professional appearance?
5. Can the "real" outcomes of a counselor training
program be measured with a test of knowledge
about the field?
Many other questions of this nature could be asked,
for there is certainly no dearth of them. The dearth
15
exists in answers.
Pepinsky and Pepinsky have used this issue as a
significant theme in their writing (56). In their words:
In counseling and clinical psychology, as in
other professions concerned with helping people
to behave differently, a dilemma exists. Seem
ingly, one cannot be at the same time both prac
titioner and scientist in working with a client.
The scientist, like his prototype "Arrowsmith,"
is conceived as seeking information about how
people behave under varying conditions, even to
the point of deliberately withholding help from
some of those who seek and need it. The practi
tioner is said to have the immediate problem of
doing something for the people who seek his help,
even though this necessitates action on the basis
of limited and inaccurate knowledge. These roles
can be reconciled, although this is not easily
achieved. (56:7)
They point out that in the past a dualistic con
ception had existed in the field, resulting in divergent
or fragmented training programs designed to produce either
practitioner or scientist, but not both. In 1951, however,
both the APA's Committee on the Training of Clinical Psy
chologists and the Committee on Counselor Training of the
Division of Counseling Psychology recognized the need for
reconciling these two roles in their recommendations for
training programs (56:11).
The authors cite common interests and functions of
the practitioner and the scientist. They see the counselor
16
as functioning in the manner of scientist-practitioner dur
ing the course of counseling through the continuous process
of careful observation and the formulation inferences based
upon these observations.
The Fepinskys describe some antecedents to this
state of affairs. Historically, as the role of the guid
ance worker developed, his functions were viewed as those
primarily designed to help the student to "personalize"
his educational experience. On the one hand, then, the
helper or practitioner was exemplified. However, at the
same time, pressures for "professionalization" were opera
tive :
To be a professional counselor, one had to
have an organized body of knowledge; one had to
have "scarification rites" for the novices to
undergo, and one needed proper status symbols
with which to identify the professional in-group.
An important symbol was the counselor's identifi
cation as a professional psychologist, but this
meant he had to pay for the privilege by taking
an increasing number of psychology courses.
(56:4)
On the one hand, then, is the helper of people, the
do-er of good; on the other the scientist, the profession
al, the knowledgeable intellectual. In the view of the
Pepinskys, these two men can and should be reconciled into
the functioning scientist-practitioner. Both areas are
17
crucial, both essential to their conception of counseling.
Brammer and Shostrom (13) speak of this issue in
terms similar to the Pepinskys, referring to the counsel
ing function in terms of its objectivity-subjectivity bal-
ance.
Objectivity refers to the cognitive, scientific
aspects of the relationship. From the objective standpoint,
the client is regarded as an "object of study," or as a
"part of broad, suffeting humanity." Objectivity can "have
definite meanings" and may "offer security for the coun
selor" (13:146).
The subjective elements of the counseling relation
ship include "emotional involvement in the form of human
’warmth1 and psychological 'closeness,1 as well as intense
interest in the particular client and his problems." This
subjective view may mean that the counselor must have
recognized in himself those universal human experiences
such as anxiety, ambivalence, and self-dismay.
He must have worked through these enough in himself
that he will be able to bear recognizing and empathizing
with them in his client. These authors, as do the Pepin
skys, attempt to resolve these two elements into some form
of harmonious relationship.
18
The most reasonable goal seems to be that the
counselor gets emotionally involved to the extent
necessary to keep the client emotionally involved;
but the counselor's keen interest in helping is
tempered with a reserve and distance so that the
counselor can accept attitudes and feelings ex
pressed by the client without reacting personally
to them. (56:147)
Apparently, Brammer and Shostrum concur in consid
erable degree with the Pepinskys. They seem to view the
counselor once again in a dualistic kind of functioning.
He is at once participant and observer.
Thus, it may be inferred that in counseling
practice, objectivity and subjectivity are in a
harmonic, yet paradoxical, relationship. This
means that the counselor operates variously
between the two positions and incorporates ele
ments of both. (56:147)
A very closely related dimension is described by
Bordin (11). He refers to cognitive-conative balance.
Cognitive elements refer to intellectualizing, such as
exchanging information, advising on courses of action, or
the making of interpretations. The conative elements, as
defined by Bordin, refer to expressions of feeling. The
counselor must know when to encourage rational examination
and interpretation of the client's problem and when to
encourage exploration of feeling.
Once again, the counselor is perceived as having
two roles. In this case, they are not necessarily blended,
but are played during the interview situation whenever the
counselor deems it appropriate. Nevertheless, in Bordin1s
view, the counselor is clearly expected to function in two
rather identifiable ways during the course of counseling.
Some recent opinions relevant to the present inves
tigation come from C. Gilbert Wrenn. His writing expressed
the consensus of the Commission on Guidance in American
Schools in a preliminary report on the project. He
described the hypothesised dual role in the following terms
He must be scholarly as well as effective in
interpersonal relations, work with both head and
heart.
Clearly the counselor must be professionally
educated and not merely ''trained.'1 Like the min
ister or physician or any other educated profession
al, he must learn specialized procedures and be
responsible for their application in the light of
a broad knowledge of the field.
Although not a part of any official curricu
lum, the graduate faculty in counselor education
should give attention to the need for personal
psychological growth of graduate students in this
field. The counselor as a person is the most
important single factor in counseling. (83:165,
166, 168)
From the phrase "head and heart" it may be inferred
that the counselor is again being perceived as one who
operates both intellectually and emotionally. "Profession
alization" crops up again in the form of the "minister or
20
physician, or any other educated professional."
Broad knowledge of the field is required in that
this knowledge seemingly furnishes guidelines for the
application of "specialized procedures-." Perhaps this
represents the "head" of the counselor.
However, Wrenn views the "counselor as a person" as
the most important single variable in the counseling proc
ess. If the counselor as a person represents the "heart"
phase of counselor functioning, then Wrenn apparently views
this area of function as the most crucial for the actual
carrying out of the counseling function. It is a matter
of curiosity that while possibly viewing the "counselor as
a person" as the most important single factor in counsel
ing, provisions for his psychological growth are not seen
as a "part of any official curriculum."
What Wrenn seems to be saying is that the counsel
or's total make-up as an individual is of primary impor
tance in his duties in the counseling situation. Neverthe
less, there are intellectual and professional aspects to
his functioning. Didactic knowledge is given a firm role
in that the counselor must operate within a framework
defined by broad knowledge of his field, and he must appear
as an "educated" person in the manner of other profession
21
als. The curriculum, however, is viewed as one which
attends primarily to the latter, or intellectual, phase of
the counselor's functioning.
This is somewhat confusing and, on the surface,
inconsistent. If the counselor as a person is the most
important single consideration, why has it no place in the
training curriculum? Is the counselor's knowledge of the
field not a part of him "as a person"? Does this mean we
must select rather than_train from the standpoint of the
counselor's attitudes? Indeed, this apparent confusion,
inconsistency, and ambivalence only serves to point out the
essential vagueness and fuzziness of the philosophical
orientation of the field.
Rogers (60) presents a perspective quite different
from that of Wrenn and the Committee. In a later book
(63), this perspective is further expanded and clarified.
Writing in 1951, Rogers believed that the attitudes
held by the counselor were the most critical factor in his
success in working with clients.
It may be more accurately said that the coun
selor who is effective in client-centered therapy
holds a coherent and developing set of attitudes
deeply imbedded in his personal organization, a
system of attitudes which is implemented by tech
niques and methods consistent with it. In our
22
experience, the counselor who tries to use a
"method" is doomed to be unsuccessful unless this
method is genuinely in line with his own atti
tudes. (60:19)
While he did select candidates on the basis of
certain intellectual and personal characteristics, as de
lineated by the APA, he nevertheless felt that:
It would seem that the orientation to personal
relationships with which they enter a training
program is more important than the specific course
work they have had or the scientific knowledge
they possess. (60:436)
In Rogers' view, people from the arts, literature,
and drama could be just as effective as therapists provid
ing they had the motivation^ to do so.
In this instance, Rogers was talking about selec
tion prior to the taking of any course work directly re
lated to the field. Blocksma (60) made what was at that
time the only research evaluation of training outcomes.
The results of his study seemed to support and lend further
definition to Rogers' beliefs.
None of the factors measured by Blocksma's paper
and pencil achievement tests correlated with successful
"client-centered" counseling competence. Significant cor
relations were found, however, between the degree to which
counselors were able to manifest client-centered techniques
and various criteria of counseling effectiveness. The
point in citing this particular piece of research at this
time is merely to try to emphasize Rogers' theoretical
position. Essentially, he seemed to feel that didactic
knowledge, as measured by tests, is considerably less
relevant to actual counseling performance than is the coun
selor's personal "hypothesis" about the nature of the coun
seling relationship. It is his emerging ability to behave
in ways consistent with the testing of this hypothesis
which gives rise to his competence as a client-centered
counselor.
In his later writing, Rogers presents the issue in
question here as central in his quest to understand the
nature of psychotherapy. Better than any other single
piece of writing, perhaps, his thoughts identify this issue
in its broadest perspective as it relates to this study.
He began with two apparently irreconcilable points
of view. First, there was the therapist, the subjective
person, implementing the faith that his liking, his confi
dence, and his understanding of the other person's inner
world would lead to a significant process of "becoming" on
the part of both client and therapist. In this role, as he
"lets himself go" in the relationship, both he and his
24
clients were more able to experience and express their
feelings fully without intellectual inhibitions or cau
tions. Important in this conception is that the therapist
does not know where all this is leading. He is free of
apprehension and concern in this regard, with no type of
analytic or diagnostic thinking, with neither cognitive nor
conative barriers to "letting go."
Opposing this conception is the scientist--the
"tough-minded fact finder" in the psychological realm who
endeavors to picture the meaning that science can give to
therapy. Contrary to the subjectivity of the counselor in
the counseling relationship, the scientist must possess an
objective knowledge of events and of functional relation
ships between events.
Rogers saw these viewpoints as two widely divergent
ways of perceiving the essential aspects of counseling.
Embracing of these opposing views could lead to conflict
between groups. Similarly, if an individual saw truth in
both these approaches, as did Rogers, he might feel con
flicted by them. He seemed, as have others, to feel the
need for reconciliation.
There you have the contrary views as they
occur sometimes explicitly, more often implicitly,
25
in current psychological thinking. There you have
the debate as it exists in me. Where do we go?
What direction do we take? Has the problem been
correctly described or is it fallacious? What
are the errors of perception? Or if it is as
described, must we choose one or the other? Or
is there some broader, more inclusive formulation
which can happily encompass both of these views
without damage to either? (63:215)
This reconciliation is accomplished in what, to
Rogers, was a "fresh integration" in which the conflict
between the "experientialist" and the "scientist" tends to
disappear. Rogers describes this reconciliation in terms
of a dual set of values. One is a "value and reward in
human relationships" that influences him to enter into a
therapeutic relationship where feelings and cognition merge
into one unitary experience, which is not examined, where
he is participant rather than observer. It should be
noted, however, that even as a participant both the intel
lectual and the emotional are at work, merged into a "uni
tary experience."
The other value is that of curiosity about the
"exquisite orderliness" which appears to exist in the uni
verse. In this relationship, he can abstract himself from
it and look upon it as observer, making himself and others
the objects of that observation. Rogers is not explicit as
to when he acts as observer: whether or not he would
26
observe and use "all of the hunches which grow out of the
living experience" during actual interviewing, a la Pepin
sky. Nevertheless, Rogers, too, talks in terms of some
form of unified duality of function when he speaks of the
"unitary experience" where feelings and cognition merge.
The implications for counselor training are per
haps best expressed by Rogers:
There would be as much focus in such training
on the interpersonal experience as on the intel
lectual learning. It would be recognized that no
amount of knowledge of tests and measures, or of
counseling theories, or of diagnostic procedures
could make the trainee more effective in his per
sonal encounter with his clients. (64:427)
Synthesis.--What synthesis can be made of these
various points of view? What are the implications of such
a synthesis for counselor education?
First of all, the writers reviewed here all agreed
that the counselor functions both subjectively and objec
tively in the performance of the total counseling function.
Outside the interview situation, he may function
primarily as the scientist-objective, analytical. During
the interview process, however, it seems agreed that the
counselor must function subjectively as well--warm, accept
ing. A merging, or blending, or unification of these two
27
aspects of human functioning is seen as desirable.
Counselor training should, perhaps, attempt to pro-
duce a counselor capable of functioning in both these
dimensions--head and heart. In light of this discussion,
one would not necessarily expect either of the two func
tions alone to be related to successful performance.
How does this blending come about? Perhaps it is
the connotative meaning of the knowledge of the field to
the individual counselor which determines his success.
Perhaps the blend or merging of intellectual and attitud-
inal elements referred to is the impact of what the coun
selor has learned upon his total personal organization.
Arbuckle may be talking about this possibility when
he discusses the teacher's traditional concern with product
and content versus the counselor's emphasis on process and
persons (6). It may be that the important learnings are
not those which are measured by tests of retention of con
tent, but those which Arbuckle refers to as "incidental"
learnings--the personalized meanings--the "real" outcomes
of the educational process. It may be that these are the
learnings which influence counseling behavior much more
than the course content which has been retained.
Arbuckle tentatively concludes:
28
. . . educators know more about the content to
be assimilated and retained than they do about the
actual process of learning, and the actual out
comes and changes that occur as a result of this
learning. (6:164)
However, the underlying issue presented here is the
following: on the one hand is the objective, rational
counselor--the person who attempts to gain and use an iden
tifiable body of knowledge in order that he may understand,
predict, and "control" human behavior. On the other hand,
we find the subjective, "feeling" counselor who emphasizes
the quality of the relationships he can establish with
others so that those others may be more "free," more "cre
ative," more able to live a life style which has "real
meaning" for them.
To summarize the objective view, the counseling
function is seen variously as analytical, cognitive, inter
pretive, rational, controlled, and psychologically distant.
The counselor is scholarly and educated, possessing a
broad knowledge of his field. He is a tough-minded fact
finder, looking for the meaning that science can give to
therapy--concerned with objective knowledge and the func
tional relationships among events.
In the subjective view, counseling is nonevalua-
tive, providing for free expression of emotion, a letting
29
go without concern with where this will lead. The coun
selor is characterized by warmth and personal involvement.
He is seen as a practitioner, a helper, and one who becomes
psychologically close to his clients.
In some instances attempts are made to reconcile
these two extremes in terms of hypothetical balance, inte
gration, fluctuation between the two, or a dual set of
value8.
The discussion so far has served to identify, in
very gross form, two philosophical polarities. What about
their underlying assumptions and consequent relevance for
training?
It is perhaps possible to differentiate each of
these extremes into three levels of conceptual representa
tion.
1. The functional--in which the philosophical
positions described relate to the actual func
tioning of the counselor in the immediate
counseling encounter.
2. The professional--in which the philosophical
positions described relate to the professional
image of the counselor and the counseling pro
fession.
3. The abstract--in which the philosophical posi
tions described relate to the conception of the
nature of man.
The functional level.--The epitome of the "objec
tive" position at the functional level can be seen in the
research reported by Lindsley, as reported in Rogers (61).
Following the principles of operant conditioning,
chronic schizophrenic patients were differentially rein
forced by a machine for "altruistic" lever pressing behav
ior. Marked clinical improvement was reported in some of
the patients.
Ends and Page (28) report research where the objec
tive of the therapist was to "permit as little of his own
personality to intrude as is humanly possible."
These two examples are fairly typical of the behav-
iorist, or learning theory approach to counseling. The
behaviorist outlook seems to typify the objective polarity
that has been described. The individual can be dealt with
as impersonally as possible, to the extent of being given
"therapy" by a machine. The individual is apparently
treated as an object. Through a process of reward manipu
lation the client is conditioned to respond in more "ac-
31
ceptable" or "healthy" ways.
" In the words of Michael and Myerson:
The entire field of guidance, counseling, and
psychotherapy might benefit considerably if all
workers considered seriously just one behavioral
principle and its corollary, namely, that behavior
is controlled by its environmental consequences
and that an effective procedure for producing
behavioral change is the manipulation of the
environment so as to create consequences that
will produce the desired behavior. (49:396)
In contrast to the behavioral viewpoint which
stresses the calculated use of explicit procedures and
techniques, is the view of Rogers. Writing in the Person
nel and Guidance Journal, he says:
Without trying to fully integrate the findings
from these various studies, it can at least be
noted that a few things stand out. One is the
fact that it is the attitudes and feelings of the
therapist, rather than his theoretical orientation
that is important. His procedures and techniques
are less important than his attitudes. (61:8)
The objective viewpoint places its stress upon
techniques, while the subjective viewpoint emphasizes the
importance of attitudes and feelings.
The level of professionalization.--At this "inter
mediate" level, the objective-subjective issue appears in
the form of the possession on the part of the counselor of
a "unified body" of technical information. Wrenn feels
32
that, like other professionals, the counselor must be
responsible for the application of special techniques in
the light of broad technical information. In short, he
must appear as an "educated" individual.
Williamson (81) agrees with Wrenn, and even con
ceives the image projected by the "broadly informed and
cultivated educator" as a part of his technique.
Both McCully (48) and Selden--as he is quoted in
McCully's article--link professionalization with a speci
fied body of objective knowledge and, hence, align profes
sionalization with the "objective" viewpoint as it is con
ceived in this chapter.
Performance of the specified social service
rests primarily upon intellectual techniques.
The members possess a common body of knowledge
which can be identified and can be communicated
through intellectual processes of higher educa
tion. (48:682)
Rogers, again, is the antagonist. He feels that
the need to "professionalize" is a reaction to a fear the
counselor may have that he will be "trapped" by his feel
ings toward another should he let himself freely exper
ience them. As he says:
So as a reaction we tend to build up a dis
tance between ourselves and others--aloofness, a
"professional" attitude, an impersonal relation-
33
ship. I feel quite strongly that one of the im
portant reasons for the professionalization of
every field is that it helps to keep this dis
tance. (61:12)
The abstract level.--At the ’ 'highest'1 level of con
ceptual representation, the concern is with the assumptions
about the nature of man which underlie the two positions.
At the functional level, the assumptions which
underlie adherence to either polarity may involve the
counselor's implicit or explicit beliefs about himself and
how he should behave as a counselor. At the professional
ization level, these assumptions are projected to the
counseling profession. At the present level, they are
projected to man in the abstract. In other words, these
three conceptual representations are not mutually exclu
sive, but are three ways of looking at the same phenomena.
The objective view at this level is embodied once
again in the theoretical principles of behaviorism. Based
as it is on rigorous scientific investigation, it is not
surprising that observable behavior is seen as the crucial
phenomenon with with counselors must deal, and that behav
ior is conceived as a dependent variable (49:383).
The independent variable in this case is the
environment. The goal in counseling then becomes the
34
manipulation of the independent variable so as to produce
desired changes in the dependent variable.
The crucial point for this discussion is: the
assumption underlying such a theory must be that of natural
determinism. B. F. Skinner, upon whose research much of
the behaviorist principles rest, makes this assumption
explicit:
The hypothesis that man is not free is essen
tial to the application of scientific method to
the study of human behavior. The free inner man
who is held responsible for his behavior ... is
only a prescientific substitute for the kinds of
causes which are discovered in the course of
scientific analysis. (62:446).
The objective position may well carry with it,
then, the view of man as an organism interacting with, and
dependent upon the nature of, his environment.
Conversely, the subjective view has found expres
sion in the psychology of existentialism. Van Kaam charac
terizes counseling from such a viewpoint:
Counseling is essentially a process of making-
free, a humanizing of the person who has lost his
freedom in sectors of his existence where he can
no longer transcend his life situation by freely
giving meaning to it. He behaves there more or
less as a lower form of being, as a dehumanized,
determined existence. (77:403)
The implication clearly must be that man is con
ceived as capable of freedom and responsibility. Surely
35
one cannot "free" that which does not have this potential.
It will be noted that Van Kaam admits to a "deter
mined" existence, but this condition of man obtains only
when he cannot transcend it through giving meaning to it.
Lack of meaning and determinism are synonymous, Man tri
umphs over determinism only as he gives meaning to his
existence. He is then "humanized" and "free."
How is this issue reflected in the thinking of
counselor educators? Arbuckle (5) has suggested a "broad
philosophical basis upon which a counselor's education
might be built." Some of the emphases of Arbuckle's
position are:
1. While the counselor indeed possesses certain
knowledge and skills which are identifiably
different from those possessed by others on the
school staff, nevertheless, it is what the
counselor does in the way of establishing a
special kind of interpersonal relationship with
students that is most important. This position
is embodied in two principles:
Principle 5--The education of the
school counselor will be such that he
will possess certain unique knowledges
and skills which are possessed by neither
36
the administrative staff, the teaching
staff, nor by other members of the spec
ialized pupil personnel services. (5:5)
Principle 3--Learning results from a
personal encounter; it is involved with
process rather than content; and thus a
close human involvement between two people
may result in positive learning regardless
of the content in the relationship. (5:5)
2. The end result of this close human involvement
is for the ultimate benefit of the individual,
and not the group, not society necessarily.
Principle 10--Education is primarily
for the benefit of the individual. Bene
ficial results may accrue for the group,
but in a free society, education is an
individual matter. It is, in effect, a
learning contract between an individual
and his self. (5:6)
3. The counselor's education should be in harmony
with this.
Principle 9--The personal security of
the counselor is such that he can be a
truly free individual, dedicated to the
cause of the freedom of the individual,
subject to no group and no organization.
(5:6)
Arbuckle*s stress, then, is on the counseling rela
tionship, the personal make up and the attitudes of the
counselor, and a strong belief that the end result of their
interaction is the complete freedom of the individual.
37
This position does not go unchallenged, however.
Reactions reveal sharp disagreement.
Writing in the same publication, McClary says:
We must give attention not only to a person
ality which is sensitive, skillful in interper
sonal relations, possessed with appropriate judg
ment and equanimity, but to specialized knowledge
and technical competencies . . . (47:8)
In another reaction, Shear comments:
Very true, but I would add, without develop
ing the idea, that a lack of information about
the child, and in many cases, to pass on to the
child may limit the effectiveness of the relation
ship as described. 1 guess what I am asking for
is content to support the process . . . (66:10)
But even more revealing is the reaction contained
in a report of the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting of
A. C. E. S.:
While we subscribe to the belief in freedom of
the individual and freedom of choice, we also sub
scribe to the belief in the individual's respon
sibility to society. _
The school counselor is first an educator
because he is intimately involved with others in
this enterprise. His focus is on assisting the
individual in a unique way. He possesses a body
of special knowledge and technical competencies
which distinguish his services from the teacher,
school administrator, and other school staff.
(59:n.p.)
It can be seen that the dual functioning, and the
conflict of underlying assumptions of the counselor is
reflected by a basic schism in the field. Beyond simply
38
ways of functioning, these two viewpoints apparently involve
some fundamental beliefs about the nature of man and his
place in society.
Adherence to either of these extreme philosophical
positions, and a genuine attempt to implement procedures
consistent with them, would involve two diametrically
opposed viewpoints on the nature of man. Attempts to
reconcile the two points of view would indeed make diffi
cult demands upon the counselor. Pierson points this out
accurately and dramatically:
My intuition tells me that school counselors
are just beginning to sense the basic philosophic
dilemma rtiich is deeply imbedded in the role they
play. As counselors they are committed to the
values of personal responsibility and freedom, but
as scientists they subscribe to an assumption of
natural determinism. They are in the difficult
position constantly of attempting to explain,
predict, and control student behavior while in
sisting that students formulate their own values,
assume personal responsibility, and choose their
own educational and career objectives.1
And it is no wonder that school counselors
have been unable to solve this dilemma. The
Western World is baffled by it.
Hope seems to lie in our discovering that
science does not contain its own objectives; that
science is a means and not an end; that the proc
esses of science can be used to further many
purposes; and that social goals are always a mat
ter of human judgment. But the nature of individ
ual liberty and personal responsibility in a
technological society must be re-examined. Ways
of solving this dilemma must-be thought out.
(57:63)
39
Review of Pertinent Research
It is paradoxical that a professional field devoted
to the understanding of others has so much difficulty
understanding itself. Continued progress of the field
depends to a considerable extent upon such understanding.
The frustrations inherent in such a situation were expressed
by Wellington:
It is amazing that counselor educators with
their research and individual appraisal orienta
tion would have done so little for so long in the
selection of their trainees. Since counselors,
presumably, must possess certain characteristics
beyond those provided or developed in preparation
programs, it is incredible that such characteris
tics and competencies have not yet been identified
and measured. (80:142)
That this "incredible, , situation exists even after
ten years of research is quite well established (74).
However, even though such problems are a long way from
solution, counselor educators are constantly increasing the
quantity of research devoted to this area.
Early attempts, from approximately the late 1940’s
to 1958, to identify appropriate counselor attitudes con
sisted chiefly of the opinions of authorities in the field.
In addition to the subjectivity of these early efforts, a
clear-cut definition of "attitudes" was lacking. State
ments included personal characteristics which could be
labeled as attitudes, but attitudes were not clearly iden
tified as such. Karraker (42) did make an attempt to dis
till attitudes from other personal characteristics, how
ever. His list of 26 attitudinal characteristics purported
to be desirable in a counselor is fairly representative of
early procedures:
Attitudes Jovial Sincere
Business-like Kind Tactful
Confidential Logical Understanding
Democratic Mannerly Vigorous
Enthusiastic Natural
Worldly-wise
Friendly Objective Exact
Gracious Patient Youthful
Helpful Qualified Zealous
Impartial Resourceful
The inadequacies of such lists is immediately
apparent.
Concurrent with subjective reports and opinions
during this period were certain classic studies, in that
they have served as models and guides, which attempted to
identify counselor characteristics and attitudes through
the use of objective measures. These are chiefly the
well-known studies of Wrenn (82), Cottle (20), and Kelly
41
and Fiske (43),
These studies have been well reviewed by others,
but one of the findings made by Cottle is of particular
interest here. He found that counselors with training
could be differentiated from teachers by certain items of
his Experimental Attitude Scale. He also found that his
"trained Counselor" group was very similar to a trained
group studied by Penney. However, Penney found that coun
selors with training and experience differed but little
from counselors with less training but with considerable
experience. These findings raised more questions than they
answered. Possibly, a year's training or several years'
experience amount to about the same end result. Or, more
cogently perhaps, the attitudes which differentiated were
present at the beginning of training. As Cottle said:
The scale needs to be given to persons as
they begin training. This would show whether
these attitudes already exist or are developed
through training. (22:31)
Identification of attitudes functioning in trained
counselors, then, isn't quite enough. Did these attitudes
develop through training or were they characteristic of
the individual as a person before formal training? Can we
train, or must we select?
42
Other studies, too, have attempted to objectively
identify counselor "attitudes" and characteristics.
Brains (14) investigated the relationship between
certain personal characteristics of counselors and effec
tive communication in counseling.
He found a positive relationship obtaining between
"tolerance for ambiguity," as measured by the Berkeley
Questionnaire. and the criterion.
Defining empathy as the "ability which enables a
counselor to put himself in the position of his client and
predict self feeling and attitudes," Daane (24) tested the
hypothesis that counselors with a high degree of empathlc
ability possessed different and significantly distinct
measurable characteristics from those counselors with less
empathic ability. This was indeed the case, with high
empathy counselors scoring higher on the neurotic and psy
chotic categories of the MMPI, and the low empathy coun
selors scoring higher on the behavior problem categories.
Snyder (71) found attitudinal differences on the
MMPI between students rated high as prospective clinical
psychologists and those rated low on the same criterion.
Although he could not construct a valid MMPI scale which
would differentiate, a significantly larger percentage of
43
poor prospective clinical psychologists obtained larger
numbers of elevated scores*.
Snyder described the good students as more aggres
sive, independent, unconventional, intellectual, and social.
They were less religious, less neurotic, less prone to have
feelings of inferiority than their peers. He described
the poor students as tending to be more conventional, more
religious, and to have feelings of inadequacy and neurotic
concerns.
Arbuckle (3) asked counselor trainees to choose
three fellow trainees that they would most like to have as
counselors (be counseled by) and three they would least
like to have. The selectors were also asked to give verbal
descriptions of concomitant traits.
The "liked" counselors displayed a higher degree
of confidence, as measured by the Heston Personality Inven
tory. They were more "normal" in that they had lower
scores on the Hs, D, Pa, Hy, Sc, Si, and Ps scales of the
MMPI. "Rejected" counselors indicated less in the way of
home satisfaction, as revealed through the Heston. They
were more "abnormal," in that they scored higher on the
Hs, Pa, Hy, Sc, Pd, and Ha scales of the MMPI.
Verbally, the "liked" group was seen by their peers
44
as possessing tolerance, warmth, interest, patience, and
sincerity. The "rejected" group was seen as lacking in
understanding, disinterested, aggressive, probing, moral
izing, biased, authoritarian, and superior in manner.
The traits mentioned did not appear to be compar
able to the obtained personality differences. Arbuckle
theorized, however, that if one displayed the Heston
(confidence) and MMPI characteristics he would be more
likely to be viewed in the descriptive terms used by the
trainees.
The studies that have been referred to up to this
point are considered reasonably representative of the kinds
of attempts that were made to assess counselor "attitudes"
prior to the passage of the National Defense Education
Act. This is simply an arbitrary dividing line. Certain
ly, not all the research done or being done since then has
been performed in Institutes created by the Act. Neverthe
less, the immediacy of problems involved in selecting people
for this training and evaluating the effects of training
has stimulated many of the research findings now available.
Munger (52), for example, focused his attention
directly on the attitudes of counselor-trainees in two NDEA
Guidance Institutes, both during the training and subse-
45
quent to its completion.
His first study was done during an eight week
institute held in the summer of 1959. Administering Por
ter's Test of Counselor Attitudes five different times,
he measured attitudes and changes in attitudes that took
place.
Counselor-trainee attitudes did change signifi
cantly, even before actual counseling with clients had
begun. It was noted that "understanding" responses in
creased significantly while "probing and diagnostic"
responses decreased significantly. However, the two post
training administrations revealed that responses in these
two crucial categories gradually approached their original
pretraining levels. Th® rapidity with which the attitudes
moved in the "right" directions during training and then
back to their original nature, led Munger, and reviewers
(74) to conclude that the trainees were learning what the
faculty thought were the proper responses to the Porter
Scale.
To Munger, the results were "discouragingly transi
tory." Apparently, participants returned to work and
quickly re-adopted their former attitudes. However, for
the most part, the participants did not return to work as
46
full-time counselors. These results led to two questions:
1, Would a longer period of training have pro
duced attitudes that were more lasting?
2. Is there a difference in the persistence of
attitudes mediated by the posttraining insti
tute employment of the participants?
Additional research was undertaken to answer these two
questions.
Using the trainees in a semester-long institute,
Munger administered the Porter four times: prior to the
beginning of the institute, eight weeks after it had begun,
during the last week of the institute, and six months after
the institute had ended.
The semester group showed no significant change in
attitude between the first administration and the second
eight weeks later. However, by administration three, at
the end of the semester, significant change toward more
"understanding" responses had been made. This figure, how
ever, was almost identical to the level shown by the summer
group three months after the training had ended. Thus, the
level of "understanding" responses in the semester group
was almost identical to the "back-slid" responses of the
summer group.
47
Munger describes Che findings in the following way:
The short-term group reached a higher peak in
expressing understanding responses, reached it
faster, and descended from it rapidly after train
ing. On the other hand, the long-term group never
reached such a peak, but seemed to continue to
climb toward it, even after the training had
ended.
Responses in category V indicate an opposite
trend, with those for the short-term group drop
ping sharply during the training and rising after
training, while those for the long term group
dropped more gradually and continued to decrease
after training. (52:418)
So, the "understanding" attitudes of the semester
group did persist longer than those of the eight week
group, but these persistent attitudes were generally indis
tinguishable from the "back-slid" attitudes of the latter
group. This was not the case, however, with "probing and
diagnostic” responses. For these responses, the groups
did differ significantly six months after the end of train
ing.
In order to determine whether or not the posttrain
ing employment had an influence upon attitude change, the
responses of those participants from both groups who were
subsequently employed as counselors were compared with
those who were not so employed. It was found that "under
standing" responses tended to hold up in the counseling
group significantly better than in the noncounseling group.
48
By the same token, fewer "probing and diagnostic" responses
were made by the counseling group than the noncounseling
group. ^
Apparently, if the attitude changes initiated dur
ing the institute are relevant to the posttraining work
experience, some persistence in the changes may be ex
pected. Additional research is planned by Munger and his
associates to test this conclusion.
A different question might be raised about Munger's
findings. Did personality differences have anything to do
with the results obtained? It seems possible that the
fluctuations in attitudes could be a reflection of person
ality, and that posttraining employment might also be a
reflection of the same variable. These questions are sug
gested by research done at Ohio State University by Kemp
(44). First of all, he administered both the Porter Scale
and the Dogmatism Scale, Form E (Rokeach) to a control and
experimental group, on a before-and-after basis. The con
trol group did not engage in counseling practicum, while
the experimental group did have such an experience. The
attitudes of the experimental group showed significant
change at the end of the quarter, while those of the con
trol group did not.
49
Those individuals in the control group scoring high
on the dogmatism scale had significantly fewer "understand
ing" and "supportive" responses on both pre-and posttests
of the Porter.
The actual interview responses of the experimental
group were compared to those given on the Porter Scale to
determine the degree of difference between the responses
given in the hypothetical situation (Porter) and responses
given in the actual situation (counseling) in relation to
the degree of dogmatism.
The experimental group was divided into two sub
groups on the basis of their dogmatism score, closed minded
(high), open minded (low). For both groups, the changes in
each of the five Porter categories was significant at the
.01 level. In each of the two groups, these changes were
toward permissiveness and understanding. When the hypo
thetical and actual responses were compared for the two
groups, however, only the "open minded" group was permis
sive in the actual counseling situation. When actually
counseling, the "closed minded" group changed their re
sponses toward evaluative, probing, interpretive, and
diagnostic responses.
Kemp discusses his findings:
50
The open-minded, who could be expected to be
more aware of their reactions to stimuli, who have
less need to narrow and distort, and who normally
consider ideas on their merits, are better inte
grated, experience less threat, have less anxiety,
and are more permissive in their normal relation
ships. They respond this way and therefore are
more understanding and supportive in their responses
from the beginning. . . .
On the other hand, the closed-minded, who are
less in contact with their visceral and sensory
stimuli, who to varying degrees narrow or distort
meanings in relation to their early beliefs and/or
authority figures, are more inclined to review
their responses in the light of the demands of the
situation. (44:156).
In their responses to situations on a page
they could reflect and select the most appropriate
response in accordance with expectancy as inter
preted. The situation demanded an immediate
response. They, therefore, responded more in
accord with their customary and genotypical atti
tudes, which were more directive. (44:147)
Kemp concluded that:
1. Without specific training, neither those with
an open or closed belief system change signif
icant ly.
2. The more closed minded, the greater the possi
bility that the counselor in training will
stimulate change in accordance with the demands
of the situation. This change is likely to be
phenotypical, "party line" change rather than
integrated concepts and new directions for
action.
While having been mentioned before, both these two
studies point up one of the difficulties in assessing the
attitudes of counselors, this being the ease with which
most present attitude scales can be manipulated in the
"proper" direction.
The findings of Demos and Zuwalif (85) are inter
esting in the light of the previous discussion. Using a
six-week summer institute group as subjects, they, too,
found that significant attitudinal shifts took place, as
measured by Porter's Test. As a group, the counselors
moved in the direction of being less evaluative, less prob
ing, and more understanding and interpretive. Counselor
responses were analyzed in terms of the theoretical posi
tions of their supervisors. Two scales were found to be
significant. The counselors of the client-centered super
visors were found to be significantly more understanding
in their responses than were both the counselors of the
eclectic and directive supervisors. All attitudinal
changes, however, were essentially in the same direction.
The authors felt that the differences, on the whole, were
minimal in view of the similarities found.
Upon inspection, the data reveal that the coun-
52
selors working with the client-centered supervisor were
more evaluative and less understanding at the outset of
training. The counselors working with the directive coun
selor were more probing at the outset.
These findings are suggestive of what Kemp found,
that the group which was originally inclined to be evalua
tive in their responses shifted significantly in the other
direction, under the "tutelage" of a supervisor of that
orientation. The group originally inclined to be of a more
understanding nature made less shift, with less external
inducement, perhaps, to do so. The probing group followed
the same pattern.
A similar pattern was noted and commented upon by
Steward (72). His seminar groups made significant attitudi
nal shifts from "directive" to "client-centered" orienta
tion. However, Stewart felt that there was "no assurance
that the responses gave an accurate picture of the student's
real attitude." The students were aware of the instructor's
orientation, and the attitude scale itself is transparent.
Perhaps these are examples of "closed minded" groups re
sponding to the perceived demands of the situation.
Achievement versus attitudes.--Up to this point,
53
the discussion has been concerned exclusively with coun
selor attitudes. Very little research is available which
deals with counselor knowledge, or the interaction of
counselors' knowledge and attitudes.
Blocksma, as mentioned earlier, found no signifi
cant relationship between an achievement test and various
criteria of successful counseling. Other than this pioneer
effort, practically nothing was done in this area until the
1962 dissertation by Joslin.
Joslin's study, done at the University of Michigan,
has profound import for the present investigation. His
findings and conclusions have provided much of the ration
ale behind the central problem being studied here.
The general framework of Joslin's study was one of
evaluation--whether or not a counselor preparation program
had the effect of increasing students' level of knowledge
and competence in conducting interviews. In addition,
however, he wanted to determine the relationship between
these two variables.
He was also testing a basic assumption about the
nature of the counselor education process; specifically,
that there is a significant relationship between knowledge
and counseling performance. He felt that:
54
Although the affective components of counsel
ing competence are generally'recognized by coun
selor educators, many preparation programs make
little effort to deal with attitudinal or emotional
factors involved in becoming a competent counselor.
Because such programs rely almost entirely
upon didactic course work to prepare counselors,
it appears that they are more interested in what
the counselor' knows than in what he can do with
what he knows. (39:40)
The expectation that significant increases would be
found in both the achievement test scores and in counseling
competence was entirely substantiated in the case of the
achievement test, and given strong support in the case of
the competence ratings.
Regarding the relationship between these two, it
was hypothesized that the correlation between counseling
competence and knowledge would be significantly higher at
the end of the training program than at the beginning.
Although the coefficient obtained near the end of the pro
gram was numerically larger than the correlation coeffi
cient between pretest scores and early interview ratings,
the difference was not statistically significant. To Jos-
lin it seemed:
These results may indicate that the hypothesis
was not valid or that the institute program did
not, in fact, adequately provide the experiences
which would reduce or eliminate the attitudinal or
55
emotional interferences which prevent counselors
from utilizing knowledge they have acquired.
(39:121)
Joslin concluded that while the training program
did have the effect of increasing both the level of know
ledge and counseling competence, counseling competence is
generally limited by emotional or attitudinal factors and
thus does not readily attain a level consistent with the
level of knowledge. If a practicum in supervised counsel
ing effectively helps counselors-in-training overcome the
limitations imposed by emotions or attitudes, the trainees'
counseling competence should become highly correlated with
their level of knowledge in appropriate subject matter.
The second study pertaining to the present problem
is one performed by Wellington and his colleagues at Penn
State University. A survey of literature on counselor
selection revealed that "factors other than scholastic
ability" were involved in counseling success. Wellington
coneluded:
It, therefore, follows that no single cri
terion of success is possible, and that we should
endeavor to assess the abilities, attitudes, and
interests necessary to achieve the technical pro
ficiency required for effective counseling and
guidance— scholastic aptitude in the broadest
sen8e--and the personality characteristics pre
requisite to the establishment of the interper-
56
sonal relationships essential to effective counsel-
ing--personal effectiveness. (80:92)
Therefore, criterion measures representing two
factors, academic achievement in formal course work and
counselor effectiveness in an interview situation were
selected for comparison to attitudinal predictor variables.
Combining the 627 items of the Edwards Personal Preference
Scale, the Cottle Attitude Scale, and the Symonds Educa
tional Interest Inventory, he found that better than 25
per cent of these items differentiated at or beyond the
.05 level of confidence.
One hundred sixty items were found for academic
achievement, 125 for counseling effectiveness, but only
nineteen were common to both criteria. In his intercorre
lation matrix, Wellington found that academic achievement
and counselling effectiveness correlated only .12, a find
ing very similar to Blocksma's and Joslin's. Wellington's
conclusion is that:
Scientific selection of applicants to coun
selor education programs seems to require measure
ment of at least three factors, in addition to
graduate school entrance requirements, which
appear to be involved in achieving success in
counseling preparation and counselor performance:
a. Academic ability as established by grade
average of the last two years of college
work plus measurement by a test of
scholastic aptitude.
b. Personality attributes necessary to
achievement of academic effectiveness.
c. Personality attributes necessary to
attain the interpersonal relationships
essential to counseling effectiveness.
(80:108)
There may be other implications of Wellington's
data which are quite relevant to the present problem.
Apparently, according to the data, a counselor can be aca
demically competent, but ineffective as a counselor. One
can be academically less competent but still effective as
a counselor. The counselor who is both academically compe
tent and effective, however, has attitudes which differ
entiate him from his colleague who shows less in the way of
academic competence, but who is nevertheless effective.
It might be predicted, then, that:
1. Counselors higher in knowledge have attitudes
distinguishable from counselors lower in know
ledge .
2. Not all counselors high in knowledge will also
be effective.
3. Those counselors high in knowledge and also
effective will have attitudes distinguishable
from those high in knowledge but ineffective.
Since some of the attitudes may be shared by both
58
groups, however, such differences in attitudes could prove
to be blurred unless appropriate academic attitudes and
counseling attitudes could be identified. Success in coun
seling, however, would not be contingent upon knowledge in
Wellington's view. That is to say, he would probably not
subscribe to Joslin's opinion that ultimate potential is
represented by knowledge. Potential, it would seem, is
indicated by attitudes, as far as counseling competence
alone is concerned.
Arbuckle's question as to whether the best student
is necessarily the best counselor is of interest here.
Indeed, a definite dichotomy paralleling the philosophical
ideas discussed earlier is suggested. The counselor as
student and the counselor as interviewer appear to be able
to be two different people.
Summary
The data reviewed herein suggest:
1. The attitudes of counselors do appear to be
affected by training.
2. Attitude change, as measured, may be different
from attitudes as manifested.
3. Attitude change appears to be related to the
degree of open- or closed-mindedness of coun
selors -in -training. That is to say that atti
tudes held at the outset of training play a
significant role in the change process. There
may be only strengthening of appropriate atti
tudes rather than any kind of transformation.
4. The attitudes characteristic of academic suc
cess are distinguishable from those attitudes
characteristic of the actual counseling func
tion.
5. Academic success and interviewing competence
are not necessarily related.
These five implications appear to be justified on
the basis of different studies, using different populations,
and different designs. The "good student" functions in a
different attitudinal way than the "good interviewer."
Perhaps one emphasizes the cognitive, the other the
conative. The question still remains: are the best coun
selors those who can function in both dimensions?
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE
Overview
Soon after the first full year NDEA Institutes
were under way, the Institute Directors met and agreed to
exchange certain research data. The resulting arrangement
had two facets. One set of data was to be gathered by a
total of eighteen institutes (representing all those insti
tutions who were conducting institutes). These data were
to be sent to the University of Illinois where they were
to be punched on IBM cards, and subsequently made available
to all Institute Directors. The NDEA Comprehensive Exam
ination scores were a part of these data.
Within the total group of eighteen directors was
a smaller group. This smaller group was interested in
trying out certain experimental instruments which would
yield data of less general interest than those previously
referred to. The four institutions who cooperated in this
60
61
study comprised this group. Certain data, other than those
gathered by all eighteen institutes, were assembled, shared,
and used exclusively by this particular group. The Seman
tic Differential was one of these sets of data.
The Data Gathering Process
Knowledge of the field was measured by administer
ing the NDEA Comprehensive Examination on two occasions.
Pretesting was done during the first week of each insti
tute, roughly the middle of September, 1961. Posttesting
was done in the last week of each institute, roughly June,
1962.
Resulting data were forwarded to Dr. Fred C. Proff
at the University of Illinois, who devised a coding system
and punched these and other data on IBM cards.
Attitude scores were obtained by two administra
tions of the Webb-Harris Semantic Differential Test. The
testing dates were the same as with the NDEA Comprehensive
Examination. However, only the four institutes directly
involved with this study administered the Differential.
Prior to pretesting dates, sufficient copies of the
Webb-Harris were mimeographed at the University of Southern
California, and mailed to each of the four institutes in
62
volved. Following administration, the tests were returned
to the University of Southern California where they were
scored, using a set of homemade cardboard keys. The same
procedure was followed for the posttest Semantic Differen
tial Data. The scores were then transferred to 6 x 8
cards, and subsequently punched on IBM cards. The coding
system devised for this punching used the basic format
established by Proff's work as far as identifying data were
concerned.
Counseling competence rankings were obtained con
currently with posttesting on both the Comprehensive and
Semantic Differential. These rankings were also sent to
Illinois and punched on one of the sets of IBM cards. The
rankings were dichotomized into the eight top ranked and
eight bottom ranked members of each individual institute,
and punched according to this format.
The obtained data were not shared with the train
ees, and neither of the two research instruments was dis
cussed in classes devoted to tests and measurements.
After all the data were available, appropriate
statistical treatment was determined based upon each of
the seven questions proposed in this investigation. These
tests were then programmed at the University of Southern
63
California Business Facility and Computer Science Labora
tory in conjunction with the professional staff there.
Each question, and the statistical procedure designed to
treat the data in such a way as to provide the answers,
will be discussed in detail in subsequent chapters on re
sults .
The Sample Population
The population used in this investigation consisted
of the combined enrollment of four different universities
conducting academic year institutes beginning in September
of 1961, and ending in June of 1962. Enrollment in the
separate institutes ranged from twenty-nine to thirty-two,
yielding a total population of 119. The four participating
institutions were: The University of Florida, The Univer
sity of Texas, the University of Minnesota, and the Uni
versity of Southern California.
The basic criteria for selection of enrollees
were delineated by the United States Office of Education
(76). This procedure guaranteed that in a broad way,
selection criteria were reasonably standard across the four
institutes. These basic criteria as outlined by the United
States Office were:
64
At least three selection criteria are to be
included: (1) a criterion of academic aptitude;
(2) a criterion or criteria designed to screen out
applicants with personal characteristics deemed
not suitable for one aspiring to counselor prepar
ation and (3) a criterion establishing a suitable
range (a minimum and a maximum) of previous prep
aration, either in terms of specified courses or
of credit hours earned. This latter should be
designed to yield a sufficiently homogeneous group
of enrollees so that the proposed training pro
gram will be appropriate and productive for each.
Although enrollees may be required to meet the
academic standards for admission to the graduate
school, they shall not be required to enroll in
the graduate school for degree-seeking purposes.
(76:13)
Selection criteria for each institution, then, were
free to vary, but within certain limits. As interpreted by
the University of Southern California, the selection
criteria were as follows:
Basic criteria.--
1. A minimum of one course in guidance, with a
maximum of six such units.
2. A minimum of two years of teaching experience
in a secondary school, plus a regular teaching
credential which enabled the candidate to teach
in the state from which he was selected.
3. Current employment with classroom teaching as
the principal assignment.
65
4. Evidence from the employing district of reason
able intent to utilize the service of the
candidate as a counselor at least half time in
the year following the institute.
5. Eligibility for admission to the graduate
school.
6. A satisfactory score on a suitable test of
academic aptitude.
In addition to the materials necessary to determine
status on the above criteria, each applicant was required
to submit an autobiography which was to include his reasons
for wanting to become a counselor and why he felt he would
be able to function in such a capacity. The autobiograph
ies in combination with all the other evidence submitted
were analyzed by a committee of four to determine status on
an additional criterion, that of judged potential for sec
ondary school guidance work.
In the same population as a whole, the people
chosen represent a wide geographic area. The ages of the
enrollees ranged from 23 to 52, with a median age of 32.8.
Of the one hundred nineteen people, 80 were men, and 39
were women. The median number of years teaching experi
ence was 6.
66
The Problem of the Criterion
The criterion of counseling competence used in this
study consisted of the ranking, by the supervisory person
nel of each institute involved, of each counselor-trainee
on the basis of predicted overall job performance as a
public school counselor. Rankings were made individually
by each of the personnel involved, including the Directors,
and subsequently pooled.
This particular criterion measure, while considered
an adequate one, was not at first considered the ideal one
for the specific purposes of this research. The problem
of finding a valid criterion measure for counseling compe
tence is an extremely difficult one for any study in which
such a criterion is to be used, and was an even more diffi
cult one for this particular research. In addition to
deciding precisely what counseling competence was and how
it was to be evaluated, the issue was further complicated
by the fact that there were four different institutions
involved in the data gathering process.
Without the availability of personal contact, a
complicated criterion measure requiring a great deal of
instruction or supervised practice could not be used. Nor
could the criterion instrument be one which would make
67
unusual demands upon the time of personnel already burdened
with other tasks related to their own work. The time con
suming analysis of tapes or transcripts of interviews, for
example, was out of the question.
With these problems in mind, two rating scales were
subsequently developed. The first of these was done in
conjunction with another investigator whose research was
closely enough related to the present one that it seemed
feasible to use the same criterion for both. After consid
erable reading, and culling from rating scales of the same
general type, a lengthy rating scale was developed.
When utilized, the scale proved to be too long and
complicated to be practical for either of the two studies,
although it appeared to have face validity. The joint
effort to construct a scale was then abandoned. The second
attempt to develop a differentiated criterion rating imme
diately followed the first. A short, six item scale was
devised. Each item consisted of a descriptive statement,
followed by a rating scale.
By the time the scale was developed and ready to be
tried out, however, the time for making the criterion rat
ing was at hand. The scale would either have to be used in
its present untried form, or be abandoned. It was decided
68
to use the scale In its crude form In the hope that it
might prove to be a workable criterion measure. It was
sent to each participating institution, filled out by their
supervisory personnel, and returned.
As more or less anticipated, the scale contained
too many "bugs" to be considered adequate, although poten
tially it seemed to have promise.
However, concurrent with these ratings, the iden
tical personnel who made them were also involved in ranking
these same counselor-trainees for the general research
purposes as set forth by a group of Institute Directors.
It had been agreed by this group that they would gather,
and freely share, certain research data on their groups.
The present criterion measure was among those data.
Therefore, the present study was redesigned to
include the present criterion and resubmitted to the Com
mittee on Studies for approval. Such approval was forth
coming and the present criterion was adopted for use.
General versus differentiated criterion.--The
original reason for trying to develop a differentiated
rating scale, as opposed to the overall competence ranking
that was eventually employed, was the hypothesis that the
69
two different predictor variables might conceivably pre
dict different criterion behaviors. In the process of
reading and evaluating various rating procedures, however,
considerable doubt was cast upon this hypothesis. The most
telling blows stemmed from the gigantic research project
conducted by Holt and Luborsky (37), a project extending
over ten years. They put an enormous amount of time and
effort into developing and perfecting differentiated cri
terion rating devices, only to find that the criterion of
"Over-All Competence" was the most effective one. As they
say:
The residents and the supervisors were called
on to make highly differentiated ratings, covering
many aspects of psychiatric work. Implied in our
getting so many measures was the assumption that
they were not perfectly correlated, and, there
fore, it might be possible to predict different
types of competence.
We intercorrelated the Peers' evaluations, and
also the Supervisors' evaluations to see how much
distinction was, in fact, being made. The cri
terion variables all correlated with one another
so highly that we suspected there might not be
much independence between the ratings. Conse
quently, we subjected the two sets of correlation
to factor analysis. The results were quite simple:
There was only one factor in the Peers' Evaluations
and only one of any significance in the Supervis
ors' Evaluations. This means that Over-All Compe
tence is the only criterion in which one can have
a great deal of confidence; the ratings of other
variables are for the most part minor distinction
within the global judgment of general competence.
70
It seems likely to us that the work functions of
the psychiatrist require skills that are actually
highly correlated. (37:128)
It seems reasonably likely that the same problem
would plague the raters involved in the present study.
Sample Rank Order Correlation coefficients made on the
ratings obtained tend to indicate the same thing.
The general criterion used, then, would appear to
be adequate in terms of a specific-general continuum, even
though it does not allow for specific relationships between
counselor characteristics and counselor competence.
Ratings versus other types of criteria.--Counseling
competence seemed without question to be the only appropri
ate type of criterion for the purposes in mind. But how
best to obtain it? Ratings, or rankings, were decided upon
for several reasons.
A quantitative measure, such as the number of
counselees seen, or the number of case reports submitted
seems quite obviously inadequate. Superficial counseling
procedures can enable one counselor to see many more coun
selees than another.
A measure of counselee "improvement" administered
independently of the counselor involved was another possi-
71
bility. However, no such measure existed and to develop
one would be a major project in itself. In addition,
although attempts were generally made to control this fac
tor, any such procedure would have to take into considera
tion the kind and severity of the problems presented by
various counselees. Possible variations in assigning dif
ficult counselees in the four different institutes involved
created an additional barrier to this type of criterion
measure.
The use of some kind of rating scale seemed the
most feasible way. There seemed to be no way to get a
meaningful measure of any important aspect of counseling
competence without somehow involving human judgment.
Ratings by Institute Directors and Supervisors.--
It was decided, then, to rely upon the judgment of the
trainers to evaluate the proficiency of their products. It
was felt that the best available judgments would stem from
these personnel-mature members of the counseling profes
sion.
In actual practice, counselors are evaluated by
their supervisors, and these opinions, based as they are
on close observation, are accorded considerable weight.
72
The criterion of pooled evaluation of qualified
supervisory personnel was considered to have the most
inherent validity as a measure of counseling competence
within the restrictions already discussed. This type of
judgment is usually the basis for hiring and promotion and
for other indications of professional success.
To prevent contamination of the criterion measure,
none of the obtained data were made available to Institute
personnel who would be required to rank the trainees.
To recapitulate: ratings were decided upon as the
only feasible criterion measure; differential scales proved
to be unsuccessful due to limitations of time; a simul
taneously obtained general competence criterion was substi
tuted.
Description of an NDEA Guidance
and Counseling Institute
In September of 1958, the 85th Congress passed
Public Law 85-864, the National Defense Education Act. Of
the ten sections, or titles, of this act, Title V dealt
specifically with the field of guidance and counseling.
Title V contained two parts. The first of these,
Part A, provided "grants to state educational agencies
to assist them to establish and maintain programs of
73
counseling and testing.'1 As a partial result of this first
part, there was a noticeable increase in guidance activi
ties in the states, resulting in an even more acute need
for trained counselors.
Title V (B) is the provision that the framers of
the legislation worked out to help meet this need. It
directed the United States Commissioner of Education to
arrange, through contracts with institutions of higher
education, for the operation of Counseling and Guidance
Training Institutes. These could be either short term or
regular sessions, but the general purpose in either case
was that of giving secondary school counselors, and teach
ers in secondary schools about to enter counseling, the
training they needed.
While the Institutes created under the terms of
the National Defense Education Act may vary to a consider
able extent in some of their specific objectives and means
of implementing them, the general purposes and the general
structure of different Institutes remains relatively stand
ard. For this reason, only one of the four participating
Institutes, the one conducted at the University of Southern
California, has been discussed in any detail. It may be
assumed that the other three are comparable to the one
74
described.
The 1961-62 academic year Institute held at the
University of Southern California had five basic objectives:
1. To improve enrollee self-understanding so as
to facilitate more effective counselor-coun-
selee interpersonal relations.
2. To upgrade understanding about the dynamics of
behavior as influenced by both psychological
and sociological variables.
3. To broaden the knowledge of methods of obtain
ing information about counselees, including the
use and interpretation of standardized tests.
4. To develop a philosophy of counseling consist
ent with modern theory and research and con
gruent with the counselor's self.
5. To develop understanding and skills in the
roles, relationships, and management problems
involved in pupil personnel programs.
The program itself consisted of three general
phases: the didactic, the counseling practicum, and the
integrative seminar.
Didactic.--This was the instructional phase of the
75
program. The experiences were provided in three major
blocks: behavior dynamics, psychometrics, and counseling
procedures. Typical examples of the specific courses
included: Counseling Theory and Practice, Tests and Meas-
t
urements, Group Guidance, Educational Sociology, Vocational
Development and Career Planning, and Adolescent Psychology.
One elective per semester was included.
While the faculty was drawn from the regular staff
of the University of Southern California, the enrollees
did not attend regular University classes. Instead, they
met as a group with the professor who was giving the par
ticular course. This was the only deviation from the regu
lar policies and routines of the University.
Counseling practicum.--This phase provided enroll
ees with practical counseling experience. Each enrollee
counselled from eight to fifteen secondary school students
during the course of the academic year. All counseling
was done in the evening hours at the Guidance Center Annex
on the University of Southern California campus. Condi
tions were reasonably ideal, in that each counseling ses
sion was held in private and could run as long as an hour.
This provided a standardized set of conditions which could
76
not be duplicated in some of the schools available for
off-campus field work.
Counselors had access to the cumulative record of
each counselee before beginning actual counseling inter
views with him. The number of interviews with each coun
selee varied from one to as many as fourteen or fifteen,
depending on the nature of the counseling problem. How
ever, the average number of interviews per counselee was
about five.
While not made mandatory, it was suggested that
enrollees invite the parents of their counselees to come in
for at least one session. Typically, this was a test
interpretation interview, held after the counselor had held
a similar session with the counselee alone.
Counselors and their counselees had access to a
complete file of tests, materials for scoring, profiling,
and interpretation, and career information. Individual
testing, if needed, was available.
Counseling supervision was intensive. Each en-
rollee was assigned to one of three full time supervisors,
and required to meet with that supervisor a minimum of one
hour per week. These sessions were devoted to full explor
ation of all the facets comprising the counseling process.
77
From the supervisory standpoint, chief emphasis was
laid upon helping each enrollee understand the importance
of, the nature of, and ways and means of establishing an
effective working relationship with the particular coun
selee in question. Other aspects such as hypothesis build
ing, selecting tests, administering and interpreting them,
and giving information were not slighted, but were consid
ered subordinate to the establishment of a counseling at
mosphere of mutual trust and respect.
After completion of each case, enrollees were
required to submit a detailed written report which was
checked, revised if necessary, and returned to the coun
selee* s school.
As might be expected, the supervisor-enrollee rela
tionship itself frequently resembled a counseling rela
tionship. There were limitations to this, of course, but
in view of the relationship emphasis already referred to,
it was felt by the staff that, if possible, the best way to
learn the unique characteristics of the counseling rela
tionship was for the enrollee to experience it.
Enrollees were rotated periodically among the three
supervisors so that each enrollee worked one-third of the
total year with each supervisor. This was done for
several reasons:
1. So that each enrollee could experience the same
type of relationship with three different,
experienced supervisors.
2. Maximum exposure to three different philoso
phies of counseling, in an attempt to avoid a
"party line" effect.
3. To take advantage of varying experience, back
ground, and skill available from each super
visor.
Integrative seminar.--Those people assigned to each
supervisor for individual case work also met with him in a
two hour seminar situation once each week.
At the first of the year, the groups were largely
orientational and instructional in nature, helping to pre
pare the enrollees for the time when they would meet their
first counselee. Typical activities included analysis of
various appropriate tests, role playing of various types of
interviews, analysis of taped interviews made by previous
counselors, and so forth.
Once counseling had begun, however, emphasis
shifted to the critical analysis of each enrolleefs work.
This was done to a large extent through group critique of
recorded interviews. In early stages of seminar, groups
typically dwelled upon specific techniques used by the
counselor in question. Gradually the group members began
to perceive the influence of their own personalities, their
needs, their values, on the process and progress of coun
seling. It was when this stage was reached that the semi
nars began to serve their primary function, that of inte
grating all the disparate experiences of the other two
phases of the program into a unified and meaningful concep
tion of themselves as individuals, a personalized concep
tion of counseling, and an understanding of how they as
counselors best functioned within that framework.
It was here that they were given the opportunity to
experience and verbally label the intellectual concepts
presented in the didactic phase. Some of the enrollees
became more sensitive to their own needs and attitudes,
and to the meaning of their behavior both in and out of the
counseling situation. Hence, if progress was being made by
an enrollee, he also became more sensitive to the meaning
of his counselee's behavior. While not "therapy" in the
strict sense of the word, seminar results could be consid
ered "therapeutic" in their nature.
80
Rationale for the Use of the Semantic
Differential Technique
In view of the fact that there are several estab
lished scales for the measurement of "attitudes" in general
and "attitudes toward counseling" in particular, the deci
sion to by-pass these familiar scales in favor of the more
obscure Semantic Differential Technique should be explained.
Using a summer NDEA Institute group, Munger found
that attitudinal responses on the Porter Counseling Atti
tude Scale began changing in the direction of attitudes
held by instructors before counseling experience had even
begun. Tyler reviewed this particular research and sug
gested that:
The fact that these changes occurred during
the didactic part of the institute, before prac-
ticum experience had begun, would lead us to sus
pect that trainees were learning what to say rather
than changing their behavior. A conversation with
one of the authors in which he indicated that the
change did not persist until a follow-up several
months later suggests that this may be a correct
interpretation of this particular effect of train
ing. (74:258)
It appears, then, that the typically worded "coun
seling attitudes" scale are reasonably transparent and easy
to slant.
Research done by Kemp lends support to this con
clusion. He found that there were groups of counselors who
81
did indeed slant the attitude scale, and the tendency to
do this was a function of closed mindedness.
The Semantic Differential Technique, on the other
hand, is quite difficult to "see through" in this way. For
example, R. E. Harris, writing in the 1956 Annual Review
of Psychology, made this statement about the vulnerability
of the Semantic Differential to slanting: "The method may
be less vulnerable to conscious sets than Q Sorts and
other forms of self description" (33:128).
Endler, in explaining his choice of the Semantic
Differential in his particular study, had this to say about
The Semantic Differential Technique employs
a multi-dimensional approach and is considered
to be relatively free of response biases.
(28:105).
Part of the rationale for the choice of these par
ticular scales is, then, its ambiguity to the subjects in
terms of the "right" response to choose.
Most social scientists would agree that--
taIking freely on common sense grounds--how a per
son behaves in a situation depends on what the
situation means or signifies to him. And most
would also agree that one of the most important
factors in social activity is meaning and change
in meaning--whether it be termed "attitude" or
"value," or something else again. (55:1)
82
The above statement was made by Osgood, who devel
oped the Semantic Differential, in his book, The Measure
ment of Meaning. It explains quite clearly the second
reason for choosing this technique.
In a similar vein, the Semantic Differential has
been used frequently in research to investigate change as
a result of therapy. Snygg and Combs claim that one of the
criteria for effective therapy is a change in clients'
meanings, especially with respect to the phenomenal self.
Osgood states that:
The significance of meaning as a critical
variable in personality is most apparent perhaps
in the process of therapy itself, where the prin
cipal changes that occur appear to be changes in
significance or meaning that various persons,
events, and situations have for the patient and
changes in the inter-relationships between these
significances. (55:220)
Lazowich and Osgood state that the degree of simi
larity of meaning between a subject (self) and a model
(father) is an index of identification. Endler employed
the Semantic Differential in this way when he related
changes in meaning of several concepts to improvement in
therapy. Results of his study indicated a significant
relationship between changes in meaning of the self and
"movement" in therapy. He chose the Semantic Differential
83
for his research because: "The Semantic Differential is an
objective, reliable, valid, and general method for measur
ing the connotative meaning of concepts" (28:106).
To summarize the second phase of the rationale for
the choice of the Semantic Differential:
1. This study was concerned with the interview
behavior of counselor-trainees.
2. Behavior in a situation, in this case an inter
view situation, is dependent upon the meaning
of that situation to the individual.
3. The Semantic Differential measures connotative
meanings and changes in connotative meanings.
It is considered to be reliable, valid, and
relatively free of response bias.
Rogers believes that in order to understand an
individual's apparently illogical responses, we must first
know how this individual perceives the situation. The
individual reacts, in other words, to the situation as it
is perceived by him, or, as Osgood prefers to describe it,
in terms of what it means to him.
In line with this, perceptions are strongly influ
enced by the perception of, or meaning of, the self.
Rogers hypothesizes that situations which are
84
inconsistent with the individual's perception of self are
perceived as threatening and, hence, anxiety arousing. It
is conceivable that the probability of a situation becoming
anxiety arousing is related to the perception, or meaning
of, self and the congruities between this meaning and the
meanings of other concepts.
Joslin felt that this was a critical factor in the
lack of relationship between potential and performance.
The actual counseling situation had different meanings for
the counselor than did the test taking situation. Conse
quently, from Joslin's point of view, the counselor func
tioned less adequately in the one than in the other due to
the degree of threat.
Rogers believes, and other research lends support
to the contention, that the acceptance of self is related
to the acceptance of others. Osgood believes that similar
ity in meanings of concepts implies identification. At the
very least, these two theoretical positions are similar in
their implications for this study. If, for example, it
were possible to measure the constellation--or similarity
in meaning--of self and various other concepts related to
the counseling function, it might be determined whether
85
closeness in "semantic space," or similarity of connotative
meaning of self and other concepts, is, in effect, related
to more effective performance in counseling.
Since the Semantic Differential has been demon
strated as an effective method for measuring these kinds
of relationships between connotative meanings, it seemed
uniquely appropriate to the purposes of this study. This
constitutes the third phase of the rationale for choosing
the Semantic Differential.
The Semantic Differential as a Measure
of Meaning
The Semantic Differential is essentially a tech
nique rather than a specific "test," and was developed
largely through the work of C, E. Osgood. The basic as
sumption underlying the technique is that most of the vari
ance in human semantic judgments can be explained in terms
of a relatively small number of orthogonal factors. These
factors are completely general over both subjects and con
cepts (people and words), and are always represented by the
same set of measurement scales.
Through factor analysis, Osgood has succeeded in
identifying three major factors of meaning: the evaluative,
potency, and activity factors. The relative weights of
86
these factors have been fairly consistent, evaluative
accounting for approximately double the amount of variance
due to either potency or activity.
These three factors are viewed by Osgood as a part
of a total "semantic space," a region of unknown dimension
ality, Euclidian in character. Each semantic scale, de
fined by a pair of polar (opposite in meaning) adjectives,
is assumed to represent a straight line which passes through
the origin of this space. A sample of such scales then
represents a multimensional space.
The meaning of a concept, then, becomes a matter of
locating it in "semantic space" through the process of
differentiation on several semantic scales. When a subject
judges a concept against a series of scales, each judgment
represents a selection among a set of given alternatives
and serves to localize the concept as a point in the seman
tic space. An example of such scales is given below:
FATHER
Happy Sad
_ _ • • ♦ • • ♦ •
Hard ____ : _____: : : _____: _____: :Soft
Slow :Fast
87
Given the location of such a point in the space,
the original judgments are reproducible in that each point
has an orthogonal projection onto any line that passes
through the origin of the space, i.e., onto any scale.
Semantic differentiation is, then, the successive alloca
tion of a concept to a point in the multidimensional seman
tic space by selecting from among a set of given scaled
semantic alternatives.
Difference in the meaning of two concepts is then a
function of the differences in their respective allocation
within the same space, i.e., a function of the multidimen
sional distance between the two points. Such differentia
tion constitutes an operational definition of meaning and
has two essential properties:
1. Direction from the origin--the quality of
meaning.
2. Distance from the origin--the intensity of
meaning.
Direction will be dependent upon the polar adjec
tives selected. Intensity will depend upon distance from
the origin, or extremeness, of the scale position checked.
Basic to the understanding of this operational
definition is an understanding of Osgood's theoretical
88
conception of meaning, Osgood is talking about psycholog
ical meaning rather than linguistic meaning--more specifi
cally, semantic meaning as classified by Charles Morris.
Semantic meaning consists of the relation of signs to their
significants. Psychological theories of this kind of mean
ing differ among themselves as to the nature of this dis
tinctive process.
The pattern of stimulation which is a sign, is never
identical with the pattern of stimulation which is the
significate. The word ’’ book" is not the same stimulus as
the object it signifies. The former is a pattern of sound
wave8; the latter is some complex combination of visual,
tactual, proprioceptive, and other stimulations.
Even so, a sign (the word "hammer") does come to
elicit behaviors which are in some manner relevant to the
significate (the object, hammer). The problem for the
psychologist is, under what condition does a stimulus which
is not a significate become a sign of that significate?
"Mentalistic" views assumed a dichotomy between
"physical" events and "mental" events. Signs were asso
ciated with ideas. That is, something which is not the
significate becomes a sign of the significate if it gives
rise to the idea, or thought, of that significate.
89
Early behaviorists, such as Watson, applying
Pavlovian conditioning principles, theorized that signs
achieve their meaning simply by being conditioned to the
same reactions originally made to significates.
The significate is the unconditioned stimulus and
the sign the conditioned stimulus, the latter merely being
substituted for the former. In other words, whenever some
thing which is not a significate evokes in an organism the
same reactions evoked by a significate, it is a sign of
that significate. This has proven to be a highly over
simplified view in that signs almost never evoke the iden
tical overt responses as the significate they represent.
Nevertheless, to Osgood, this theory represents a first
step toward a behavioral interpretation of the sign-process.
A move closer to Osgood's theory is the Disposi
tional Theory of Morris. The essence of his definition,
according to Osgood, is that any pattern of stimulation
which is not the significate becomes a sign of the signifi
cate if it produces in the organism a "disposition" to make
any of the responses previously elicited by the significate.
Osgood's own conception of the sign process can, in
fact, be viewed as an attempt to make more explicit the
behavioral nature of what Morris termed "dispositions." A
90
significate, in Osgood's terms, is any stimulus which, in
a given situation, regularly and reliably produces a pre
dictable pattern of behavior, that is, an unconditioned
stimulus. Many stimuli do not have this capacity. A
buzzer does not reliably produce escape behavior as does
shock.
Nevertheless, such initially meaningless stimuli do
become meaningful signs for the organism affected by them.
Osgood accounts for this process with the following formal
propos it ion:
A pattern of stimulation which is not the sig
nificate is a sign of that significate if it
evokes in the organism a mediating process, this
process (a) being some fractional part of the
total behavior elicited by the significate and
(b) producing responses which would not occur
without previous contiguity of non-significate and
significate patterns of stimulation. (55:7)
Schematically, the process looks like this:
s---------------------- Rt
S ___________„ rm sm ^
In the diagram, this stimulus producing process
(rm-sm) is representational because it is part of the same
behavior (Rt) produced by the significate itself (S). Thus
the buzzer becomes a sign (S) of shock (S), because part of
the actual behavior elicited by shock is now elicited by
the buzzer.
It is mediational because the self-stimulation
(sm) produced by this partial reaction can now become asso
ciated with a variety of instrumental acts (Rx) which deal
with, or "take account of" the significate--the anxiety
state generated by the buzzer may serve as a cue for a
variety of responses which eliminate the signified shock.
Words represent things because they produce in the
organism some replica of the actual behavior toward these
things, as a mediation process. This mediation process
is, essentially, the meaning of the sign to the organism
and overt behavior varies as a function of it.
Components of the total unconditioned response vary
in their dependence on the unconditioned stimulus, there
fore in the ease with which they may become conditioned to
a new stimulus. It follows, then, that not all the behav
ior elicited by the significate is readily available for
conditioning. Those reaction components which require the
least expenditure of energy, or which interfere least with
ongoing overt behavior typically appear more promptly in
the conditioned response. Therefore, when some stimulus
other than the significate is contiguous with the signifi
cate, it will acquire an increment of association with some
92
portion of the total behavior elicited by the significate.
This is seen by Osgood as a representational mediation
process.
Sign, then, is related to significate via the com
mon properties of Rt and rm, and signs are related to overt
behavior via the mediation function (rm *sm ^Rx) .
It is apparent, according to the views of Osgood,
that the meanings which different individuals have for the
same signs will vary to the extent that their behaviors
toward the things signified have varied. So, too, will
behavior which "takes account of" the signs vary.
While considerably oversimplified, a concrete exam
ple of Osgood's theoretical formulations might look like
this:
Let us suppose that an individual who has had lit
tle or no previous experience with the object HAMMER finds
himself in the position of attempting to drive a nail. As
he proceeds with his task he misses the nail, striking
instead, with considerable vigor, his thumb. This bit of
inept behavior will most likely result in considerable pain
and other unpleasant responses, plus certain vocalizations
and gestures. This behavioral sequence may be culminated
by abrupt abandonment of the task and leaving of the scene
93
in order to obtain medical treatment, solace, or both.
Such action "takes account of," or eliminates, the unpleas
ant situation.
Since the word hammer" has been contiguous with
the object HAMMER, and certain responses have been made in
the presence of both, "hammer" is now a sign of HAMMER.
Further, the sign "hammer" now has rich meaning for the
subject. This meaning of the sign has become differentiated
and unique to the particular individual. Future behavior
toward both the object HAMMER and the sign "hammer" will
vary as a function of certain segments of the behavior
described. Using Osgood's theoretical guidelines, one
would predict that the mere hearing of the word "hammer"
will produce a pattern of internal response (rm) very simi
lar to the original responses (Rt). This fractional pat
tern of response (rm) now produces self stimulation (sm)
which leads to new responses (Rx) "taking account of" the
stimulus (sm). These latter responses may be very similar
to the original pattern or may vary with additional exper
ience, but they are nonetheless dependent upon the variety
of the original reactions to the object.
Our hypothetical individual's responses to the
concept "Hammer" on the Semantic Differential would also
94
vary as a function of this experience. While he might
agree with many other people regarding the dictionary
definition of the word, the real meaning of the word for
him could not be generalized in this way. "Hammer'1 has its
own meaning, and his behavior toward the word will vary as
a function of this connotation.
In theoretical terms, then, the meaning of a sign
in a particular context, and to a person, is defined as the
representational mediation process which it elicits; in
terms of the measurement operations of the Semantic Differ
ential, the meaning of a sign is defined as that point in
the "semantic space" specified by a series of differen
tiating judgments. Assuming that there is a finite number
of representational mediating reactions available to any
given individual and that the number of these corresponds
to the number of dimensions, or factors, in the semantic
space, direction of a point in the semantic space will then
correspond to what reactions are elicited by the sign, and
distance from the origin will correspond to the intensity
of the reaction.
To summarize:
1. The process of the measurement of meaning, or
judgment, can be conceived as the allocation of
a concept to an experiential continuum (scale)
defined by a pair of polar adjectives, the
hypothesis being that the continua will appear
as the reflections in language of the sensory
differentiations made possible by the human
nervous system.
Many different experiential continua, or ways
in which meanings vary, are essentially equiva
lent, and can be represented by a single con
tinuum. The scales fair-unfair, high-low,
kind-cruel, valuable-worthless, intercorrelate
.90 or better.
A limited number of such continua, or scales,
can be used to define a semantic space within
which the psychological meaning of any concept
can be specified.
The point of origin of this space is the point
at which the scales intersect. Each scale,
defined by polar adjectives, represents a
straight line which passes through this origin.
The point of origin represents neutrality of
meaning.
5. As a person reacts to each scale, the direction
checked corresponds to the quality of the mean
ing which the concept in question has for him,
and the distance from the middle point of the
scale corresponds to the intensity of the mean
ing. Checking a number of these scales defines
a multidimensional point in semantic space, and
as such is an operational definition of mean
ing.
What has been done, then, is to divide the total
representational mediation process into a set of bipolar
components, the meaning of a sign corresponding to the
pattern and intensity with which these components are
elicited.
Constructing. Administering, and Scoring
of the Semantic Differential
As stated previously, the Semantic Differential is
not a test as such, but a highly generalizable technique of
measurement which can be adapted to meet the requirements
of a particular research problem or design. The concepts
to be measured and the scales with which they are to be
measured are not standard. Rather, the concepts and scales
used in a particular study depend on the purposes of the
97
study. Standardizarion and comparability are attained
through allocation of concepts to a common semantic space
as defined by a common set of factors, i.e., evaluative,
potency, and activity. While the scales may vary, the
factors do not.
There are four basic considerations in the use of
any particular form of the Semantic Differential: selecting
concepts, selecting scales, administration, and handling
the scores obtained.
Selecting concepts.--The term "concept" in a broad
sense refers to the "stimulus" to which the subject's
checking is a "response." Generally, words or groups of
words are used as concepts, but a wide variety of stimuli
may be used. Sonar signals and TAT pictures are examples.
Host likely, nouns or noun phrases will be used, i.e., MY
ACTUAL SELF.
The chief criterion for the form of the concept is
the nature of the research problem. The Webb-Harris was
designed specifically by the authors to measure changes in
counselor-trainees after an NDEA Guidance Institute (79).
Hence, the use of such concepts as COUNSELING, THE GIFTED
STUDENT, COUNSELOR, MY IDEAL SELF.
98
Selecting scales.--The process of choosing scales
is somewhat more structured than that of choosing con
cepts. Osgood’s factor analytic studies have served the
purpose of reducing the vast number of potentially useful
scales to a relatively limited, but factorially representa
tive, number. A small sample of closely related scales is
used to represent each of the three factors, since no
single scale has been found to be completely loaded on any
one factor, or completely reliable. Rather than repre
sented by a single scale, then, the score for each factor
is the average of the scales used to represent it. These
are called "factor scores."
The most significant criterion in scale selection
is factorial composition. The scales used to represent
each factor, in the case of the Webb-Harris four scales for
each, should be maximally loaded on that factor and mini
mally loaded on the others. The factors and the scales
representing them in the Webb-Harris are given below:
Potency:
Dangerous - Safe
Strong - Weak
Deep - Shallow
Masculine - Feminine
Evaluative:
Wise - Foolish
Clean - Dirty
Fair - Unfair
Unbiased - Biased
Activity:
Active - Passive
Warm - Cool
Tense - Relaxed
Calm - Excitable
A second criterion for scale selection is rele
vance to the concepts being judged. For example, in judg
ing a concept such as DIRECTIVE COUNSELING, the scale
(Beautiful - Ugly) may be highly irrelevant, whereas the
scale (Fair - Unfair) may be highly relevant. Both, how
ever, are loaded on the Evaluative factor.
There are other relevant criteria for scale choice,
but for present purposes, the two referred to above are
sufficient for clarification.
Administration.--The format of the Webb-Harris
version of the Semantic Differential utilizes one of the
two standard forms of presentation. One sheet of paper is
100
used for each concept, with all of its judgments elicited
successively, e.g. :
m ACTUAL SELF
Safe
•
*
• * • •
• • • •
Dangerous
• •
• *
Foolish
•
•
• • * •
» * * •
Wise
• •
• *
Active
■
•
• • • •
* • * i
Passive, etc.
• «
• •
This form is easy to score with cut-out cardboard
forms for each factor. It will be noted that the scales
representing each factor are alternated in polarity direc
tion.
The subject checks each scale according to its
closeness of relationship to the concept. Scores range in
intensity from one to seven, e.g.,
Safe Dangerous (Potency)
■CD : (2j_: (3) : (4) : (5) : (6j_ : ^7), :
Foolish
(11 :
(2) : (3) : (4) : (5) :
Wise (Evaluative)
(6) : (7) :
Active
17) :
£61 : (5) :
JUL.*-
Passive (Activity)
( ? ) . . : _Q> :
The ends of the polar continua which receive the
high ratings are as follows: dangerous, wise, active, strcpg,
101
clean, warm, deep, fair, tense, masculine, unbiased,
excitable.
In general, the Instructions to the subject in-
clude:
1. Orientation to the general nature of the task.
2. The significance of the scale positions and how
to mark them.
3. The attitude to be taken (speed, first impres
sion, etc.)
Analysis of Semantic Differential data.--The raw
data obtained are the digits corresponding to the scale
positions marked by the subject. If there are k scales and
m concepts, a k x m matrix is generated by each subject.
If there are n subjects, a k x m x n matrix results.
The data are not summed completely over the k
scales in computing averages, but over the three factors
separately. That is to say that the four scales represent
ing each of the three factors are summed separately, aver
aged, and result in "factor scores." For group data,
scores are summed and averaged over the n subjects.
The D Statistic.--The "D Statistic," or D, is
generally used in comparing score profiles in order that
102
quantitative statements regarding similarity of meaning
can be made. It might be immediately assumed that a corre
lation coefficient would adequately serve this purpose,
but as Osgood has demonstrated, r does not give a valid
representation of semantic relations (55:90). For example,
two score profiles could conceivably covary perfectly,
yielding an r of 1.00, but such a coefficient may be mask
ing gross absolute discrepancies between the two profiles.
Osgood clarifies this:
What is required to express semantic similar
ity is some measure of relation that takes into
account both the profile covariation and the dis
crepancies between the means of the profiles,
thereby reflecting more fully the information
available in the data. (55:91)
Such a measure is D, provided by the generalized
distance formula from solid geometry:
Dil d il2
Where is the linear distance between the
points in the semantic space representing concepts
i and 1 and dn is the algebraic difference between
the coordinates of i and 1 on the same factor, j.
Summation is over the k dimensions. (55:91)
The Semantic Differential as a Measure
of Attitude
Osgood believes that, while not specifically
103
designed to do so, semantic measurement may have opened new
vistas in the area of attitude measurement as well:
One of the significant by-products of our work
in experimental semantics, we believe, has been a
new approach and rationale for attitude measure
ment. It has been feasible to identify "attitude"
as one of the major dimensions of meaning-in-
general and thus to extend the measurement pro
cedures of the semantic differential to an impor
tant area of social psychology. (55:189)
The key, then, to the understanding and use of the
differential as an attitude measure lies in a specific
definition of what an attitude is, and the relationship
between this definition and the structure of semantic
measurement. The latter having already been dealt with, it
now becomes appropriate and necessary to define "attitude"
as it was used in this study.
To begin with, Osgood has his own definition. It
will be seen that this definition goes hand in glove with
his definition of meaning-in-general:
Despite a plethora of definitions of "attitude"
in contemporary social science, some consensus and
agreement is evident, particularly with respect to
the major properties that attitudes are assumed to
possess. Most authorities are agreed that atti
tudes are learned and implicit--they are inferred
states of the organism that are presumably acquired
in much the same manner that other such internal
learned activity is acquired. Further, they are
predispositions to respond, but are distinguished
from other such states of readiness in that they
104
predispose toward an evaluative response. Thus,
attitudes are referred to as "tendencies of
approach or avoidance," or as "favorable or un
favorable," and so on. This notion is related to
another shared view--that attitudes can be
ascribed to some basic bipolar continuum with a
neutral or zero reference point, implying that
they have both direction and intensity and provid
ing a basis for the quantitative indexing of
attitudes.
This characterization of attitude as a learned
implicit process which is potentially bipolar,
varies in its intensity, and mediates evaluative
behavior, suggests that attitude is part--to some
authorities the paramount part--of the internal
mediational activity that operates between most
stimulus and response patterns. (55:189)
Rhine (58) takes a tack very similar to Osgood's,
and offers a definition of attitude consistent with the
purpose and methodology of this investigation. He defines
attitude as a concept with an evaluative dimension.
Rhine views a concept as a mental principle through
which an individual can classify a number of objects in his
stimulus world. Thus, redwood, elm, pine, fir, and oak
fall into the class of "tall, non-animal, living things,"
and tree is the name given to this principle. The concept
"a person who speaks with a drawl and has dark skin, thick
lips, and kinky hair" classifies American Negroes for some
people.
Concepts develop over a period of time, through a
series of experiences. Take, for example, the way in which
105
Rhine hypothesizes that a child might gradually begin to
learn the concept "cow." His first acquaintance with "cow"
may come as his parents point to pictures, or objects in a
pasture and designate them as "cows." He gradually learns
that color is not all there is to it, though this is help
ful. All black objects are not cows, but green objects
are never called by that name. Cows become a feature of
not one stimulus pattern but a whole class of stimulus
patterns.
Similarly, the concept Negro. The child gradually
learns that people who have dark skins are called "Negro."
However, he soon learns that a good suntan does not make a
Negro. There are other dimensions involved, such as facial
characteristics, hair properties, and so forth.
In this case, a child would have a concept of "Ne
gro," but according to Rhine's definition of attitude, no
attitude toward Negroes. An attitude involves an evalua
tive dimension, but as stated so far, the concept "Negro"
has no evaluative dimension.
Suppose the child has an unpleasant experience with
Negroes, or hears adverse information about them. Now, his
concept may consist of:
dark skin
kinky hair
thick lips
drawl, and
bad
With the evaluative dimension included in the con
cept , he now has an attitude. It can be easily seen that
the semantic differential is well suited to measure atti
tudes as defined in this manner. As Osgood says:
. . . the meaning of a concept is its location
in a space defined by some number of factors or
dimensions, and an attitude toward a concept is
its projection onto one of these dimensions
defined as evaluative. (55:62)
In all the factor analyses that Osgood has done to
date, a factor readily identifiable as evaluative has in
variably appeared. He reports that this factor was usually
the dominant one, accounting for the largest proportion of
the variance. Even though different concepts and different
criteria for selecting scales were used, high and restricted
loadings on this factor were found for scales like good-
bad, fair-unfair, and valuable-worthless. Scales seemingly
nonevaluative on an intuitive basis such as fast-slow,
stable-changeable, and heavy-light usually had small or
negligible loadings on this factor. Osgood concludes:
107
It seems reasonable to identify attitude, as
it is ordinarily conceived in both lay and scien
tific language, with the evaluative dimension of
the total semantic space, as this is isolated in
the factorization of meaningful judgments.
(55:190)
Attitude as used in this study, then, has been
defined both theoretically and operationally. Theoreti
cally, attitude is viewed as a concept with an evaluative
dimension. Operationally, attitude consists of the ob
tained scores for each concept on the Evaluative factor,
or dimension, of the Webb-Harris form of the semantic dif
ferential.
It will be noted that both definitions take into
account only one of the three dimensions of meaning, both
as hypothesized by Osgood, and as measured by the semantic
differential technique, specifically, the evaluative dimen
sion. The reasons for including dimensions other than the
evaluative in a study concerned with attitude should be
made clear.
A common criticism of attitude scales has been that
they frequently fall short as predictors of behavior in
every day life. Take, for example, the Porter Attitude
Scales. Experts in attitude measurement have advanced the
explanation that attitude scales indicate a disposition
108
toward certain classes of behavior, and that overt behavior
in a "real life" situation will also be dependent upon the
context provided by that particular situation.
A person with an unfavorable attitude toward a
minority group may behave differently toward that group in
a social situation where he anticipates censure for imple
menting this attitude, from the way he would in a situa
tion where he would not anticipate punishment. Knowledge
of attitude alone, then, is frequently not enough to permit
accurate prediction of behavior.
It may be that there is more involved than the
situational factor, however. It is conceivable that one's
attitude is only part of the intervening state which medi
ates between situation and response. The total meaning of
the concept Communist, or Facist, or Negro to the individ
ual may be richer by far than that which is expressed in
his attitude score alone. If attitude is only one dimen
sion of total meaning, then prediction may also hinge upon
knowledge of the other dimensions as well.
In measuring attitudes with the semantic differen
tial technique, prediction might be improved by the com
bining of other scales representing other dimensions with
the evaluative. Two people might have identical attitudes
109
toward a concept as determined by scores on the evaluative
factor alone, and yet have quite different meanings of the
concept, as determined by total scores on all three fac
tors, evaluative, potency, and activity.
Suppose on subject rated the concept COMMUNIST as
unfavorable, strong, and active. Another subject rated
COMMUNIST as equally unfavorable, but as weak, and passive.
The former subject might behave quite differently, perhaps
with fear, suspicion, and counter hostility, than the lat
ter. Nevertheless, their measured attitudes would be con
sidered identical.
Similarly, the concept COUNSELOR. One individual
might rate it favorable, strong, active. Another as
favorable, strong, passive. It was speculated that such
differences as these, in spite of mutually favorable atti
tudes, might offer valuable clues to different counseling
behaviors. While it seems true that different attitudes
imply different behaviors toward the same object, it is not
always necessarily true that the same attitude implies the
same behavior. Therefore, in order to obtain the fullest
possible measure of the internal states mediating counsel
ing behavior, all three dimensions of the Webb-Harris were
employed in this study.
110
Reliability
Test-retest reliability data were obtained by
Tannenbaum in his Doctoral dissertation (55). Each of six
concepts was judged against six evaluative scales by 135
subjects on two occasions separated by five weeks. The
test-retest coefficients ranged from .87 to .93, with a
mean r of .91.
Additional reliability data were obtained on a
group of fifty subjects who rated each of three concepts
against five evaluative scales. Two weeks later, they were
administered the same test. The reliability coefficients
for the three concepts were .83, .91, and .87 respectively.
Validity
The Evaluative dimension of the semantic differen
tial appears to have reasonable face validity as a measure
of attitude. Suci (55) was able to differentiate between
high and low ethnocentrics, as determined independently
from the E-Scale of the Authoritarian Personality Studies,
on the basis of their ratings of various ethnic concepts
on the evaluative scales of the differential. Concurrent
validity has been demonstrated by comparison of the differ
ential with two other attitude measures.
Ill
Comparison with the Thurstone Scales.--The same
fifty subjects who took the differential for reliability
purposes also took the Thurstone Scales specifically de
signed to measure the same three concepts (the Negro, the
Church, Capital Punishment). Since both groups took each
of the two scales twice, two validity coefficients were
computed. The product-moment coefficients between the
differential and the Thurstone on the first testing and the
second testing are as follows:
First testing: The Church r - .74
Capital Punishment r - .81
The Negro r - .82
Second testing: The Church r - .76
Capital Punishment r - .77
The Negro r - .81
In each case, the coefficients were significantly
greater than zero. Apparently, whatever the Thurstone
Scales actually measure is measured just about as well by
the Evaluative dimension of the semantic differential.
Comparison with the Guttman Scale.--A comparison
was made between scores on a 14-item Guttman-type scale
measuring attitudes of farmers toward crop rotation, and
112
the differential. The concept CROP ROTATION was rated
using three Evaluative scales, good-bad, fair-unfair, and
valuable-worthiess. Twenty-eight subjects were found who
had taken both tests from between three days to almost four
weeks apart. The rank order correlation coefficient be
tween the two tests was highly significant (rho * * .78;
P < .01).
The findings of both these studies tend to support
the contention that the evaluative factor of the semantic
differential is an index of attitude. Although it does not
tap the content of an attitude, it does seem to provide an
index to the location of the attitude object along a gener
al evaluative continuum.
The NDEA Comprehensive Examination
in Counseling and Guidance
Description.--The instrument used to provide the
measure of knowledge of the guidance and counseling field
for this investigation was the NDEA Comprehensive Examina
tion in Counseling and Guidance. This test is an objec
tive, standardized achievement test yielding scores from
six sections plus a total score. The six sections, or
subtests were:
113
I.
General Principles of Guidance
II. Occupational and Educational Information
III.
Tests and Measurements
IV. Counseling Theories and Techniques
V. Psychological Foundations
VI. Related Disciplines
Each subtest contained fifty multiple choice items,
resulting in a total of three hundred items.
Development of the test.--The authors of the test
were Harold W. Bernard, of the Oregon State System of
Higher Education; Earl F. Carnes, of the University of
Southern California; Fred Proff, of the University of
Illinois; and Royal B. Embree, of the University of Texas.
The nucleus of items from which the first form of
the test was constructed consisted of those developed by
Willis Dugan at the University of Minnesota. These origi
nal items, some of which were revised and some of which
were eliminated entirely, were combined with new items
devised by the authors into the first form of the test.
This initial form was first administered to NDEA full year
Institutes during the 1960-61 academic year. The test was
in mimeograph form at that time.
114
The scores obtained from this first administration
were item analyzed. Further item revision and elimination
was done based on this analysis, resulting in the second
form of the test. This form was printed and served as the
instrument used in this study. Subsequent revisions have
since been made.
Validity.--The only type of validity of the NDEA
Examination studied is content validity. The authors of
the test have on two occasions made item analyses of the
test items as well as a careful content analysis. In their
judgment, the items accurately reflect the basic content of
the academic areas represented in the test.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
Knowledge
Differences within Institutes.--The first question
asked in this study was: do counselor trainees exhibit
significant academic growth during the course of an NDEA
Guidance Institute?
The data necessary to answer this question were
obtained through two administrations of the NDEA Compre
hensive Examination. The test was administered during the
first and last weeks of the 1961-62 academic year by each
of the participating universities.
The application of t tests for correlated means was
judged to be appropriate for the purpose of analyzing pre-
and posttest scores in order to determine whether or not
significant gains in knowledge had been made. The results
of this analysis are shown in Table 1. For convenience in
115
TABLE 1
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FRE- AND POST-ACHIEVEMENT TEST
PLUS RESULTING t VALUES
SCORES
Test Section Pretest Mean Posttest Mean t Pretest Mean Posttest Mean t
Institute A Institute B
1 34.82 38.77 5.948a 34.06 38.50 5.579a
2 26.10 34.99 13.889a 28.09 32.59 4.331®
3 25.90 36.92 11.001a 23.15 33.63 5.620a
4 27.75 29.10 7.698a 28.50 34.63 5.496a
5 26.44 29.21 4.170a 25.87 28.84 1.558
6 30.06 36.27 8.9003 30.63 34.44 3.666a
Total Test 171.90 209.12 16.889a 171.72 201.63 6.471a
116
TABLE 1--Continued
Test Section Pretest Mean Posttest Mean t Pretest Mean Posttest Mean t
Institute C Institute D
1 37.91 41.67 4.907a 34.61 39.67 7.977a
2 31.16 39.26 9.175a 27.10 34.95 7.512a
3 32.37 40.95 5.906a 25.93 34.61 8.798a
4 30.92 36.67 7.530a 29.34 35.23 7.266a
5 28.72 33.09 3.527a 27.79 30.17 3.579a
6 33.64 36.64 3.308a 31.99 36.30 6.250a
Total Test 195.13 228.30 11.775a 176.78 210.95 11.775a
a =
.01 level of significance
N - 119
DF - 117
117
118
interpreting Table 1, the six sections of the test are
presented below.
I. General Principles of Guidance
II. Occupational and Educational Information
III. Tests and Measurements
IV. Counseling Theories and Techniques
V. Psychological Foundations
VI. Related Disciplines
In Table 1, pre- and posttest raw score totals and result
ing t values are presented for each of the six test sec
tions, and total score, for each of the four participating
institutions.
It is readily apparent from the data presented in
Table 1 that there were highly significant gains in know
ledge on the part of each of the four groups. In only
one case was there a failure on the part of any group to
achieve significant gains on all sections of the test.
This was the case with Institute B. The gains shown on
subtest number 5 were not large enough to be significant.
In all cases, however, total test gains were very signifi
cant.
119
Differences between Institutes.--As a matter of
curiosity, t tests were also run on differences in scores,
both pre- and posttest, between the four institute groups.
It was felt that such analysis would give a rough indica
tion of comparative status with respect to level of know
ledge when these groups entered training and when they
finished.
Results of the above analysis are presented in
Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. While there were occasional
significant differences among institutes on some subtests,
the total test score differences were not significant, with
one notable exception. Institute C was superior to every
other institute both at the beginning and end of the train
ing period. This is shown even more clearly in Table 8.
With prior course work and previous experience
supposedly held relatively constant, it would seem reason
able to guess that differences in scholastic aptitude might
account for the pre- and posttest superiority shown by
Institute C.
To recapitulate, four institutes were pretested and
posttested with an achievement test to determine whether or
not significant knowledge gains were made by all four
groups. Three of the four groups were comparable to each
120
TABLE 2
DIFFERENCES IN FRE- AND POST-ACHIEVEMENT TEST MEANS
PLUS RESULTING t VALUES FOR INSTITUTES A AND B
Test
Pretest Means
f -
Posttest Means
f
Section
A B A B
1 34.82 33.95 .826 38.77 38.68 .114
2 26.10 27.75 1.535 34.99 33.10 1.674
3 25.90 22.86 1.548 36.72 33.82 2.510a
4 27.75 28.17 .376 29.10 34.74 2.225a
5 26.44 25.69 .268 29.21 29.07 .129
6 30.06 29.86 .191 36.27 34.72 1.554
Total
Test 171.90 170.03 .201 209.12 203.02 1.211
Significant at the .05 leve1.
121
TABLE 3
DIFFERENCES IN PRE- AND POST-ACHIEVEMENT TEST MEANS
PLUS RESULTING t VALUES FOR INSTITUTES A AND C
Test
Pretest Means
4 -
Posttest Means
f -
Section
A
C
L
A
C
1 34.82 37.91 1.647 38.77 41.67 2.316a
2 26.10 31.16 3.485b 34.99 39.26 5.109b
3 25.90 32.37 3.382b 36.92 40.95 2.393a
4 27.75 30.92 1.762 29.10 36.67 3.537b
5 26.44 28.72 .962 29.21 33.09 2.826b
6 30.06 33.64 1.698 36.27 36.64 .809
Total
Test 171.90 195.13 2.888b 209.12 228.30 3.337b
Significant at the .05 level.
Significant at the .01 level.
122
TABLE 4
DIFFERENCES IN PRE- AND POST-ACHIEVEMENT TEST MEANS
PLUS RESULTING t VALUES FOR INSTITUTES A AND D
Test
Pretest Means
t
Posttest Means
t
Section
A D A
D
1 34.82 34.61 .163 38.77 39.67 1.128
2 26.10 27.10 .829 34.99 34.95 .043
3 25.90 25.93 .017 36.92 34.61 1.482
4 27.75 29.34 1.225 29.10 35.23 3.298'
5 26.44 27.79 1.112 29.21 30.17 .817
6 30.06 31.99 1.430 36.27 36.30 .027
Total
Test 171.90 176.78 .886 209.12 210.95 .368
Significant at the .01 level.
123
TABLE 5
DIFFERENCES IN PRE- AND POST-ACHIEVEMENT TEST MEANS
PLUS RESULTING t VALUES FOR INSTITUTES B AND C
Test
Pretest Means
t
Posttest Means
f -
Section
B C B C
1 33.95 37.91 3.085 a 38.68 41.67
2 27.75 31.16 2.16 8b 33.10 39.26 5.719a
3 22.86 32.37 5.506a 33.82 40.95 5.130a
4 28.17 30.96 1.639 34.74 36.67 .780
5 25.69
28.72 .867 29.07 33.09 3.567a
6 29.86 33.64 2.579b 34.72 33.64 .883
Total
Test 170.03 195.13 4.120a 203.02 228.30 4.862a
Significant at the .01 level.
Significant at the .05 level.
124
TABLE 6
DIFFERENCES IN PRE- AND POST-ACHIEVEMENT TEST MEANS
PLUS RESULTING t VALUES FOR INSTITUTES B AND D
Test
Pretest Means
t
Posttest Means
f -
Section
B D B D
L
1 33.95 34.61 .772 38.68 39.67 1.532
2 27.75 27.10 .550 33.10 34.95 1.596
3 22.86 25.93 1.450 33.82 34.61 .902
4 28.17 29.34 1.149 34.74 35.23 .490
5 25.69 27.79 .962 29.07 30.17 .889
6 29.86 31.99 2.043 34.72 36.30 1.519
Total
Test 170.03 176.78 1.245 203.02 210.95 1.614
125
TABLE 7
DIFFERENCES IN PRE- AND POST-ACHIEVEMENT TEST MEANS
PLUS RESULTING t VALUES FOR INSTITUTES C AND D
jest Pretest Means Posttest Means
Section _ ^
CD CD
1 37.91 34.61 2.0753 41.67 39.67 1.093
2 31.16 27.10 2.6713 39.26 34.95 3.782
3 32.37 25.93 3.136b 40.95 34.61 4.411
4 30.92 29.34 .558 36.67 35.23 .437
5 28.72 27.79 .126 33.09 30.17 1.887
6 33.64 31.99 .366 36.64 36.30 .592
Total ,
Test 195.13 176.78 2.236a 228.30 210.95 2.847
Significant at the .05 level.
^Significant at the .01 level.
126
TABLE 8
VALUES OF t FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
PRE- AND POSTTEST MEANS
AMONG INSTITUTES
D C B
A .886 (pre ) 2.888a (pre ) .201 (pre )
.368 (post) 3.337a (post) 1.211 (post)
B 1.245 (pre ) 4.120a (pre )
1.614 (post) 4.862a (post)
C 2.236a (pre )
2.847a (post)
Significant at the .01 level.
127
other in terms of pre- and posttest status on the test.
One group was definitely superior in knowledge to the other
three before and after training.
Differences in Academic Information
between Groups
Relationship between knowledge and rankings.--
Another concern of this study was whether or not tested
knowledge of the counseling and guidance field was related
to judged competence as a counselor.
Those counselors from each institute receiving the
highest eight ranks and those receiving the lowest eight
ranks were combined into two groups--a high ranked group
and a low ranked group. Fisher's t tests for the signifi
cance -of the difference between uncorrelated means were
then computed between the means of the two groups on the
NDEA Comprehensive Examination. These tests of signifi
cance were applied to both pretest and posttest scores.
The results of this analysis of data are shown in
Table 9.
Prior to training, there was a significantly higher
mean score for the high ranked group on subtest IV, which is
Counseling Theories and Techniques. This is at the .05
TABLE 9
VALUES OF t FOR BOTH PRE- AND POSTTEST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS
FOR HIGH AND LOW RANKED GROUPS ON THE NDEA
COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION
Test
Pretesting Posttesting
Means
Standard
Deviations
Means
Standard
Deviations
High
Ranked
Low
Ranked
High
Ranked
Low
Ranked
High
Ranked
Low
Ranked
High
Ranked
Low
Ranked
1 35.72 34.53 3.26 4.89 1.21 39.84 38.50 2.58 3.67 1.67
2 28.94 27.09 4.56 4.59 1.60 36.16 34.06 2.82 5.02 2.02
3 27.97 26.06 7.74 7.03 1.02 37.75 35.25 6.39 6.07 1.55
4 30.06 27.87 3.58 4.34 2.16a 35.44 33.84 3.69 3.89 1.65
5 27.81 27.81 4.00 4.34 0.00 31.44 29.47 4.15 4.69 1.75
6 31.91 31.22 3.92 5.12 0.59 36.75 35.06 3.34 5.18 1.53
7 182.41 174.59 19.47 23.82 1.42 217.00 206.19 16.82 22.82 2.11
(Total
Test)
1 i r - . N High Ranked Group “ 32 * j
.05 level of significance. „ ^ Groupr . 32 Degrees of Freedom - 62
128
129
level of confidence. No significant differences were
found between any other pretest subtest means, or the test
as a whole. '
In addition to the t test, a point biserial corre
lation coefficient was also computed between the pretest
total score means and the criterion. This computation
yielded a point biserial r of .17, which was short of sig
nificance at the .05 level.
After training, the significance on subtest IV was
no longer in evidence, nor was there significance on any of
the other subtests, although subtest II, Occupational
Information, approaches the .05 level.
In spite of the lack of significant differences
between subtest means, however, the difference of 11.81
between total test means proves to be significant at the
.05 level.
In all but one case, both pretesting and posttest
ing, the means of the high ranked group are greater than
those of the low ranked group. In no case does the mean
of the low ranked group exceed that of the high ranked
group.
This fact was tested for significance with the
Mann-Whitney U Test. Results showed that the probability
130
of this many means of the high ranked group being greater
than the means of the low group was less than .05 on post-
test results and less than .01 when pretest and posttest
means were combined.
Growth in academic information by groups.--The two
groups were also compared for growth in academic informa
tion through the use of t tests for correlated means.
Results are presented in Table 10.
As was the case with the entire sample, growth in
academic information was marked for both ranked groups of
counselor-trainees. It will be noted that the significant
difference found on Subtest IV no longer exists.
Summary.--Judging from the statistical analysis of
the data, even before exposure to training, high ranked
counselor-trainees tended to know more about the tested
areas than did low ranked counselor-trainees.
Even though none of the differences in subtest
means was significant at the end of training, the signifi
cant trend for the means of the high ranked group to equal
or exceed those of the low ranked group confirmed the
essential superiority of the high ranked group.
Both groups showed significant growth in the tested
TABLE 10
CHANGES IN NDEA COMPREHENSIVE TEST SCORE MEANS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND JUNE
TESTING DATES FOR HIGH AND LOW RANKED GROUPS
Pretesting Posttesting
Means
Standard
Deviations
Means
Standard
Deviations
Test
High
Ranked
Low
Ranked
High Low
Ranked Ranked
t
High
Ranked
Low
Ranked
High Low
Ranked Ranked
t
1 35.72 39.84 3.26 2.58 6.33a 34.53 38.50 4.89 3.67 5.27a
2 28.94 36.16 4.56 2.82 8.92a 27.09 34.06 4.59 5.02 7.32a
3 27.97 37.75 7.74 6.39 8.24a 26.06 35.25 7.03 6.07 9.50a
4 30.06 35.44 3.58 3.69 6.26a 27.87 33.84 4.34 3.89 9.27a
5 27.81 31.44 4.00 4.15 4.35a 27.81 29.47 4.34 4.69 2.23b
6 31.91 36,75 3.92 3.34 8.80a 31.22 35.06 5.12 5.18 4.65a
7
(Total
Test)
182.41 217.00 19.47 16.82 11.59a 174.59 206.19 23.82 22.82 11.26a
a
b
.01 level of significance.
.05 level of significance
N High Ranked Group - 32
N Low Ranked Group = ■ 32
Degrees of Freedom = 62
131
132
areas during the training year, and at the end of this
period the slight gap that had existed between them had
considerably widened.
The low ranked group learned enough about Counsel
ing Theories and Techniques to eliminate the significance
of the difference that originally existed, but they did not
overtake the high ranked group.
Attitudes
The previous section of this chapter presented
findings concerning knowledge about guidance and counseling
possessed by the subjects tested. This section deals with
attitudes, changes in attitudes, and the relationships be
tween attitudes, knowledge, and competence.
Attitude data were obtained by administering the
Webb-Harris Semantic Differential at the start of training
and again at the end of training.
The concepts comprising the Webb-Harris version
were:
1. Actual Self
2. Slow Learner
3. Ideal Self
4. School Administration
133
5. Teachers
6. Discipline
7. Punishment
8. Counseling
9.
College
10.
Average Student
11. Gifted Student
12. Counselor
The data were programmed for an electronic com
puter so as to provide mean factor scores and standard
deviations, intercorrelation matrices for each factor, and
t test matrices for each factor. A separate program was
written for t tests for uncorrelated means for use between
groups.
It should be noted that, in Chapter III, when the
Webb-Harris was described, it was stated that the scale
positions for each set of bipolar scales ranged from a low
of one to a high of seven. The program as written, how
ever, converted the scale positions so that the neutral
position, four, now became zero. Thus, rather than a 1, 2,
3, 4, 3, 6, 7 scale representation, the scale markings
were converted by the program to read -3, -2, -1, 0, +1,
+2, +3, and printed out in this fashion.
134
This meant that, for example, an evaluative factor
score mean of zero would indicate neutrality of judgment
with regard to a particular concept, A factor score of
+1 would be toward the "good" side of the scale. Converse
ly, a -1 would indicate a judgment toward the "bad" side of
the scale. Osgood's opinion is that this system has an
advantage of more clearly reflecting the bipolar nature of
the scales.
Use of a computer resulted in an enormous amount
of data to be dealt with. These data were organized into
three basic types of interpretive tables. They can be
found, along with directions for their interpretation, in
the Appendix.
By means of the above tables, attitudes and atti
tude changes were described in the following ways:
1. Direction and intensity of judgment on any or
all of the three factors for the various con
cepts, pre- and posttest.
2. Distance between concepts on any one, or all
factors, pre- and posttest.
3. Changes in factor score means from pretest to
posttest.
4. Differences between mean factor scores of
135
various groups on any particular factor, with
respect to any particular concept, pre- or
posttest.
In addition, D statistics were also used on occa
sion to describe distances between all three factors com
bined. These data were not tabled, but were included in
the text.
Significant t values between factor score means
were taken from the tables containing the entire t matrix
(presented in the Appendix) and are presented in the text.
Attitudes of the Total Group
Reference to Table 28 in the Appendix reveals that
on both pretesting and posttesting, the majority of the
twelve concepts were viewed as "good," "strong," and
"active." The exceptions to this trend were the concepts
Slow Learner, Average Student, Teachers, and Punishment.
Three "clusters" of concepts having judgmental
similarities could be identified. The first of these, in
terms of being elevated highest on the evaluative (wise,
clean, fair, unbiased) scales, consisted of the concepts
Counseling, Counselor, and Ideal Self. Counseling and
Counselor were closely identified, having the smallest D
136
(.896) in the matrix. Ideal Self was about equal to
Counselor and Counseling in terms of "worthiness," but was
seen as slightly stronger than either of the other two.
While high on evaluative and potency scales, these
concepts received fairly low ratings on the activity scales,
toward passive, cool, relaxed, and calm.
This first "cluster" was apparently accorded con
siderable admiration and respect by the counselor-trainees
as a group. Ideal Self, Counseling, and the Counselor
would seem to signify depth, wisdom, fairness, and strength.
The term "benevolent strength" might be used to character
ize the viewpoint of the group toward these concepts.
The second "cluster" or constellation of concepts
consisted of Actual Self, College, and Gifted Student.
While sharing favorable judgments, they were not nearly so
highly elevated on the evaluative scales as the previous
grouping.
Had the concept Teachers been viewed as stronger,
this concept, too, would have been a part of this second
grouping. Teachers, while seen as good, were also seen as
somewhat weak on the potency scales. This may mean that,
in the view of the trainees, teachers as a group were per
ceived as being well meaning, but somewhat ineffectual.
137
School Administration and Discipline were grouped
together, being evaluated somewhat less favorably than the
two clusters mentioned previously, but more positively than
Punishment, Slow Learner, and Average Student.
Slow Learner seemed to have little evaluative sig
nificance for the group. Potency scale ratings on the
negative side characterized the group's perception of this
concept. Average Student ratings were very similar, but a
little higher on both the evaluative and potency scales.
The attitude of the group toward these two particular con
cepts would seem to be one of indifference or perhaps
ambivalence.
Punishment was seen as somewhat unfair, biased, and
unwise, but dangerous and strong. Punishment, though not
desirable, was nevertheless potent and effective in the
eyes of the group.
Inspection of Table 11 shows that the most differ
entiation in meaning was between Ideal Self-Slow Learner,
Ideal Self-Average Student, and Counselor-Slow Learner.
This was the posttest pattern, but it can be seen that the
pretest pattern was only slightly different. It seems
evident that there was a vast difference between the way
the fledgling counselors looked at Counseling and the way
TABLE 11
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE TOTAL GROUP
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Slow Learner-
Ideal Self
2.989 2.412
Slow Learner-
Counseling
2.576 N.S.
Slow Learner-
Counselor
2.294 2.116
Ideal Self-
Average Student
2.163 2.007
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 1.97
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 2.16
N - 119
DF - 117
139
they looked at the Slow Learner and the Average Student.
Table 28 in the Appendix indicates that none of the
individual factor score means changed significantly from
pretesting to posttesting. There was, however, a tendency
for the group to lower its evaluative ratings for several
concepts.
Punishment serves as an example of this tendency.
Prior to training, the group assigned a slight positive
value to this concept. At the end of training, the group
attitude toward punishment had changed to a point where it
was now somewhat negative.
Attitudes of Males and Females
Since Webb and Harris found some sex differences
and since the potency factor contained the scale masculine-
feminine, it was decided to inspect the data on the basis
of sex.
From the broadest perspective, the attitudinal
patterns of the male and female groups showed a great deal
of similarity. Each group manifested the basic pattern of
"clusters" on the evaluative scales that characterized the
group as a whole. For these data, refer to Tables 33 and
34 in the Appendix.
140
Males gave themselves slightly higher ratings on
the evaluative scales for both Actual Self and Ideal Self
than did the women. The men's ratings of these two con
cepts on the potency factor were much higher than the
women's, as would be expected in view of the Masculine-
Feminine bipolar scale used as a measure of this factor.
Females, however, rated their Actual Selves as
slightly more active, tense, and excitable than did the
men. Both groups changed their ratings of Ideal Self from
a passive one on the activity factor to an active one, at
the conclusion of training.
Each group gave higher ratings to Actual Self and
lowered ratings to Ideal Self from pre- to posttesting.
Neither of the changes, i.e., Actual Self pretest, Actual
Self posttest, was statistically significant, but the end
result was to bring these two concepts closer together at
the end of training than they were at the beginning of
training.
There was a pronounced tendency on the part of both
groups to devalue several concepts. The most noticeable
were Punishment, Discipline, School Administration, and
Teachers.
Male counselor-trainees displayed a tendency to
141
view Teachers as being weaker (potency factor) than them
selves. This trend was not quite so pronounced when the
men began training, seeming to be an attitudinal character
istic that developed during the course of the training
year.
It is also evident from these two tables that both
groups attributed more admirable qualities to the Gifted
Student than to the Slow Learner or Average Student. Slow
Learner and Average Student were consistently seen as pas
sive and weak, and neither group showed a tendency to
"like" or "dislike" either of them. The Gifted Student, on
the other hand, was seen as strong and active, in addition
to being viewed favorably.
Tables 12 and 13 show that most significant differ
ences between mean factor scores for both groups in some
way involved either, or both, the Slow Learner or Average
Student.
In the case of the male group, when they began
their training, the Slow Learner was seen as quite remote
from Counseling and the Counselor, as well as Ideal Self.
The mean factor score for Average Student was also signif
icantly lower than that for Ideal Self. The picture
changed only slightly after a year of training.
TABLE 12
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE MALE GROUP
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Ideal Self-
Slow Learner
2.863 N.S. 2.383 2.504
Ideal Self-
Average Student
2.151 2.087 2.089
Counseling-
Slow Learner
2.449 N.S.
Counselor-
Slow Learner
2.286 2.253 2.164
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.00
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 2.65
N - 77
DF - 75
TABLE 13
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE FEMALE GROUP
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Ideal Self-
Slow Learner
3.312 2.719
Counseling-
Slow Learner
2.876 2.497
Counselor-
Slow Learner
2.330 2.198
Ideal Self-
Average Student
2.225 2.082
Ideal Self-
Punishment
N.S. 2.296
Punishment-
Counselor
N.S. 2.062
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.02
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 2.71
N = 42
DF = 40 £
144
Women had a similar pattem to men regarding their
feelings about the Slow Learner and Average Student. They
differed from men in that, during the course of the year,
they devalued the concept of Punishment to the extent that
it was seen as significantly different from both the Ideal
Self and Counselor.
While it cannot be said that the attitude of either
group toward the Slow Learner or Average Student was in
itself a negative, "bad,1' or undesirable one, nevertheless,
Slow Learner and Average Student seemed less significant or
important than some of the very highly valued concepts. It
seems doubtful that contact with these types of students
could be viewed as rewarding or "meaningful" in light of
the relationships apparent in the data.
It is also apparent that such attitudes were not
the result of curricular emphasis, since these attitudinal
patterns were strongly in evidence before any training had
been received.
As will be seen, the presence or absence of such
patterns as these were relevant to judged counseling compe
tence, and such patterns did change in certain groups.
145
Attitudes of Separate Institutes
Inspection of the data in terms of the total group
as well as by sex revealed a very small number of signifi
cant shifts in relationships between concepts, and no
change at all in factor score means. It was decided,
therefore, to see whether or not significant changes took
place in individual Institutes which might have been
blurred through combining the separate groups.
Inspection of Tables 37, 40, 43, and 46 in the
Appendix shows that prior to training, each of the four
groups reflected a tendency to rate themselves as good,
strong, and active, while rating Counseling as good, strong,
but somewhat passive.
After training, two of the groups rated both them
selves and Counseling as good, strong, and active. These
were Institutes B and D. Institutes A and C kept their
pretest pattern.
None of the four institute groups showed any dras
tic divergence from the basic pattern formed when all of
them were grouped together.
There was one particular characteristic that was
Shared by all of the Institutes: the Slow Learner was
evaluatively isolated from Ideal Self. These, and other
146
significant mean factor score differences, can be found in
Tables 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, and 45.
Themselves as they wanted to be and the Slow
Learner as he was, apparently were two vastly disparate
concepts. The Slow Learner seemed to possess little of
what the Counselors thought to be most valuable in them
selves. The value system of these counselor-trainees, as
measured by the Webb-Harris seemed to have little place for
the Slow Learner. The Gifted Student was far closer to
what all the groups valued as ideal.
Institute A showed the fewest significant differ
entiations between various concepts both before and after
training (Table 14). Prior to training, they viewed Ideal
Self significantly more favorably than either Slow Learner
or Average Student. By June, however, only the distance
between Ideal Self and Slow Learner remained significant.
Prior to the initiation of training, Institute B
showed a total of five evaluative mean factor score differ
ences, which can be found in Table 15. It will be seen
that by the end of training, all but one of these differ
ences, that between Ideal Self-Slow Learner, had been
eliminated.
However, a rather paradoxical change also took
TABLE 14
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR INSTITUTE A
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Ideal Self-
Slow Learner
Ideal Self-
Average Student
2.790 2.015
2.272 N.S.
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.04
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 2.75
N - 29
DF = 27
147
TABLE 15
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR INSTITUTE B
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Ideal Self-
Slow Learner
2.658 2.373
Slow Learner-
Teachers
2.300 N.S.
Slow Learner-
Discipline
2.821 N.S.
Ideal Self-
Average Student
2.292 N.S.
Counseling-
Average Student
2.238 N.S.
Slow Learner-
Counselor
N.S. 2.220
Slow Learner-
Gifted Student
N.S. 2.164
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.04 N * 32
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 2.75 DF = 30
148
149
place in that during the course of the year, the Slow
Learner became estranged from Counselor.
Another change that took place in Institute B was
that the Gifted Student came to be viewed as significantly
stronger than the Slow Learner. This proved also to be a
posttraining characteristic of a group of low ranked
counselor-trainees.
Institute C showed a pattern roughly similar to
that of Institute B. Slow Learner and Average Student were
significantly differentiated from Ideal Self both before
and after the year of training (see Table 16).
Differences which had existed between Counseling-
Slow Learner and Counselor-Slow Learner were not in evi
dence at the end of training. However, a pretraining dif
ference between Counseling and the Slow Learner was not
eliminated during the training period.
Institute D showed the greatest number of signifi
cant differences between concept means both before and
after training (see Table 17). Curiously, this group was
the only one of the four institutes which showed a signif
icantly more favorable attitude toward Actual Self than
toward the Slow Learner and Average Student. The discrep
ancy between Actual Self and Slow Learner was present both
TABLE 16
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR INSTITUTE C
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Ideal Self-
Slow Learner
2.478 2.142
Slow Learner-
Counseling
2.867 N.S.
Slow Learner-
Counselor
2.835 N.S.
Counselor-
Average Student
2.027 2.426
Ideal Self-
Average Student
N.S. 2.043
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.04
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 2.75
N » 32
DF - 30
TABLE 17
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR INSTITUTE D
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts
Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Actual Self-
Slow Learner
2.362 2.068
Slow Learner-
Ideal Self
-4.626 -2.485
Slow Learner-
Counseling
-2.712 N.S.
Slow Learner-
Counselor
-2.789 -2.393
Ideal Self-
Average Student
-2.756 -2.441
Average Student-
Counselor
-2.141 -2.352
Actual Self-
Average Student
N.S. 2.165
Punishment -
Counselor
N.S. 2.132
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.04 N = 32
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 2.75 DF = 30
151
152
before and after training, while the Actual Self-Average
Student difference was shown only on posttesting. This was
the only group, then, showing outright rejection of the
Slow Learner, an attitude that proved to be resistant to
change during the training year.
Institute D was also the only institute group to
draw a clear cut distinction between the concepts Counselor
and Punishment.
No group showed any significant pre-post changes
on individual factor score means.
Attitudes of High and Low Ranked
Groups
Of more direct importance to the purposes of this
study were attitudinal similarities and differences between
groups of counselors who had been ranked in order of judged
potential as public school counselors.
Two methods of analyzing the data were employed:
within groups, which involved comparing and contrasting
configurations of factor score means arising within groups,
and between group similarities and differences, which
involved direct comparisons of factor score means between
groups.
153
High ranked versus low ranked groups.--!. Within
groups (Tables 18 and 19):
In the high ranked group, Ideal Self was seen as
significantly "better" than either Slow Learner or Average
Student. This has been commented upon previously with
regard to the group as a whole. The relationship shown
here was in evidence before the high ranked group had been
exposed to training, and this relationship did not change
during the course of the training period.
These were the only two significant differences
within this group. Since there were no significant shifts
on any individual concept factor score means from pre- to
posttesting, it can be said that the high ranked group made
no significant changes during the course of the training
period.
The low ranked group showed somewhat more fluctua
tion in attitudes. When training began, this group split
the Slow Learner from all the following concepts: Ideal
Self, Actual Self, Counseling, and Counselor. By the end
of training, they still maintained a significant difference
between Slow Learner-Counseling, and Slow Learner-Ideal
Self. The other two were no longer significant.
When this group began training, the Average Student
TABLE 18
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR HIGH RANKED GROUP
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Ideal Self-
Slow Learner
2.482 2.113
Ideal Self-
Average Student
3.078 2.196
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.04 N = 32
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 2.75 DF - 30
154
TABLE 19
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN KEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR LOW RANKED GROUP
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Actual Self-
Slow Learner
2.044 N.S.
Slow Learner-
Ideal Self
-2.541 -2.114
Slow Learner-
Counseling
-2.495 -2.106
Slow Leamer-
Counselor
-2.635 N.S.
Average Student
Counselor
-2.017 N.S.
Ideal Self-
Punishment
N.S. 2.068
Average Student-
Counseling
N.S. 2.002
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.04 N * 32
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 2.75 DF - 30
155
156
was differentiated from Counselor, but not from the concept
Counseling. This situation was exactly reversed by the end
of training, with the Average Student now seen as different
from Counseling, but not from Counselor.
The principal configurational difference between
the two groups of counselors was in the way Slow Learner
and Average Student were perceived in relation to Counsel
ing. That is to say, the low ranked trainees drew a marked
distinction between Counseling and both the Slow Learner and
the Average Student. This group's attitude seemed to
"worsen" in this respect, in view of the fact that only the
Slow Learner was isolated when training began.
The high ranked group made no such distinction,
either before or after training. In other words, the two
groups were different in this respect when they began train
ing, and became even more unlike as they experienced the
training process.
While differing in the manner just mentioned, both
groups showed virtually the same "clusters" of concepts
that typified the group as a whole. See Tables 53 and 54
in the Appendix.
These clusters seemed to form a "hierarchy" of
positive regard. The cluster involving Ideal Self,
157
Counseling, and Counselor was polarized near the high end
of the evaluative scales. Actual Self, College, and
Gifted Student were next. School Administration and Disci
pline ranked third, fairly close to neutrality in attitude,
but still favorable nonetheless.
In the case of the high group, Teachers tended to
be a part of this middle cluster. This was not true with
the low ranked group. Low ranked counselor-trainees saw
Teachers as good, yet somewhat weak. High ranked coun-
selor-trainees, on the other hand, perceived them as good,
but also as strong.
Nevertheless, the distances between Actual Self and
Teachers were smaller than those between Actual Self,
Counselors, and Counseling. Counselor and Counseling were
more similar to the perception of Ideal Self than to that
of the Actual Self for both groups.
It is interesting to note that the Actual Self was
not closely identified with any of three possible vocation
al alternatives. Actual Self was slightly closer to
Counselor than to School Administration, with the latter
concept having less value. Actual Self was closer to
Counselor than to either Teachers or School Administration
for both groups. The D between Actual Self-Teachers showed
158
an Increase after training, while the D between Actual
Self-Counselor decreased in both high and low ranked groups.
2. Between groups (Tables 51 and 52 in Appendix):
Of a total of seventy-two possible differences
between means for these two groups, five were significant.
Three of them were pretest differences, two of them post-
test differences.
Prior to training, low ranked counselors viewed the
Average Student more favorably on the evaluative scale than
did the high ranked group, but assigned this concept a
significantly lower rating on the potency scales. These
differences were eliminated by the end of training, how
ever, since each group devalued the concept slightly, and
the low group now saw the concept on the strong side of the
neutral potency position.
The Average Student appears as almost neutral in
meaning to both groups.
The low group pictured the Counselor as being sig
nificantly more of a passive individual than did the high
group at the start of training. By the end of training,
however, the two groups had become more convergent in this
respect, and the significance of the difference was elimin
ated.
159
There was an interesting contrast in the way the
two groups viewed the counseling process. With no train
ing, both groups were unequivocal in their regard for
counseling, as indicated by high mean factor scores on the
evaluative scales. The concept was also seen by both as
potent and strong. The similarity ended here in that those
counselors who eventually received high rankings looked
upon the counseling process as an active affair. Low
ranked counselors had a significantly different point of
view, seeing the concept as passive.
After completing the year of training, the two
groups were even more acutely divergent in their outlook.
The more effective trainees viewed the counseling process
as a significantly stronger and more active process than
did the less effective trainees.
It might be said that the attitudes of both groups
toward Counseling were very similar, in that the evaluative
scale ratings were almost identical. However, the meaning
of the concept was different for the two groups. The high
group seemed to see the process as more dynamic than the
low group.
This being the case, the two groups, while having
similar attitudes, might behave differently in the actual
counseling situation, based on differences in the total
meaning of the process to them. This kind of possibility
is discussed in detail in Chapter III.
High ranked men versus low ranked men.--l. Within
groups (Tables 20 and 21):
Inspection of these tables points up the fact that
within group patterns for high and low ranked men were
quite similar.
Both displayed a pretraining tendency to make a
discernment between the Slow Learner, Average Student, and
either Counseling or Counselor. However, after a year's
training, both groups reversed this trend, and neither of
them perceived the Slow Learner or Average Student as being
out of the realm of counseling.
When high ranked men entered training, they per
ceived their Ideal Selves as significantly "better" and
stronger than they perceived the Slow Learner. This was
also true at the end of training.
A similar difference also obtained between their
Ideal Selves and the Average Student. It, too, was main
tained throughout the year.
At the start of training, the low ranked males
TABLE 20
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR HIGH RANKED MALES
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Slow Learner-
Ideal Self
-2.773 -2.637 3.093 -2.627
Slow Learner-
Counselor
-2.258 N.S.
Ideal Self-
Average Student
2.816 2.954 2.431 4.737
Average Student-
Counselor
-2.159
N.S.
Actual Self-
Counselor
2.119 N.S.
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.11
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 2.90
N = 19
DF - 17
TABLE 21
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR LOW RANKED MALES
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Actual Self-
Slow Learner
2.318 N.S. N.S. 2.416
Slow Learner-
Ideal Self
-2.396 2.226 N.S. 2.821
Slow Learner-
-2.262 N.S.
Counseling
Slow Learaer-
Counselor
-2.534 N.S.
Ideal Self-
Average Student
2.057 2.054 N.S. N.S.
Average Student-
Counselor
-2.116 N.S.
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.09
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 2.84
N - 22
DF = 20
163
displayed a pattern of mean factor score differences that
was quite similar to high ranked males. However, by the
end of training, the pattern had changed in that there were
now no mean factor score differences on the evaluative
scale. Inspection of the tables will reveal that, in the
main, these two groups showed few within-group differences.
2. Between groups (Tables 59 and 60 in the Appen
dix) :
Pretest results showed no significant differences
between the means of any concepts on any factors.
Posttest results revealed significant differences
only on the potency scale for four concepts.
High ranked women versus low ranked women.--1.
Within groups (Tables 22 and 23):
At the first of the year, the high ranked women
tended to see the Slow Learner, Average Student, and
Teachers as significantly different from themselves as they
aspired to be. Significance between these mean scores
seemed to stem from a tendency toward neutrality of judg
ment toward the aforementioned three groups, plus a partic
ularly high evaluation of their Ideal Selves.
By the end of training, however, none of these
I
TABLE 22
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR HIGH RANKED FEMALES
Pretesting_________________ Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Slow Learner-
Ideal Self
-2.203 N.S.
Ideal Self-
Teachers
2.287 N.S.
Ideal Self-
Average Student
3.608 N.S.
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.20 N = 13
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 3.11 DF = 11
164
TABLE 23
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR LOW RANKED FEMALES
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
_____ Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Slow Learner-Ideal Self -3.130 -3.605
Slow Learner-Counseling -3.325 -2.952
Slow Learner-Gifted Student -3.337 N.S.
Actual Self-Punishment N.S. 2.330
Ideal Self-School Adminis
N.S. 3.727
tration
Ideal Self-Punishment N.S. 3.030
Ideal Self-Average Student N.S. 3.605
Ideal Self-Gifted Student N.S. 2.764
Discipline-Counseling N.S. -3.385
Counseling-Average Student N.S. 2.308
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.31
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 3.36
N - 10
DF - 8
166
differences was in evidence. Their elimination is partly
accounted for by the fact that the Ideal Self rating on the
evaluative scale was lowered by this group.
This lowering of the Ideal Self, incidentally, was
accompanied by a higher rating for Actual Self, resulting
in a smaller disparity between the two.
This trend was just the opposite from that shown
by the low ranked women, who widened the distance between
Actual and Ideal Self.
The low ranked female group manifested a rather
puzzling kind of intra-group pattern, as can be seen in
Tables 65, 66, and 69.
During the course of training, this group main
tained an elevated evaluative factor rating for both Coun
seling and Ideal Self. In conjunction with this, however,
they devalued certain other concepts, resulting in a post
test pattern of a comparatively large number of significant
distances between concepts.
This particular pattern might be conceived as one
more characterized by disunity and dispersion than that
shown by the high ranked females. Such intense and une
quivocal regard were given to Ideal Self and Counseling
that several other concepts are significantly separated
167
from these two. As a group, low ranked females may have
been inclined toward nonacceptance and criticism, since
things as they were in reality were rated significantly far
away from things as they ought to have been. It is pos
sible that this pattern is one of dissatisfaction repre
senting unrealistically high personal and professional
expectations.
The low ranked females differentiated between the
concepts Counseling and Slow Learner at the start of train
ing, and still maintained this distance at the conclusion
of training.
2. Between groups (Tables 67 and 68):
Differences between high and low ranked females
tended to be somewhat striking in that both before and
after training, the low ranked group rated itself signifi
cantly higher on the evaluative scale for Actual Self than
did the high ranked group.
There was also a posttest difference between means
for the Ideal Self. High ranked females, though signifi
cantly lower on both Actual and Ideal Self at the end of
training, nevertheless showed closer propinquity between
these two concepts (D - 1.073) than did the low ranked
women (D - 1.285). The high ranked group may be one that
168
was more self-acceptant, setting less high and rigid stand
ards for itself.
The low ranked female group rated the concept
Counselor significantly higher on the evaluative factor
than the high ranked females before, but not after the
Institute. However, a significant difference on the activ
ity factor that was present before training was maintained
throughout the year. The high ranked females viewed the
Counselor as significantly more active, then, both before
and after being exposed to a year of specialized training.
Neither group made significant changes in individ
ual factor score means.
High ranked males versus high ranked females.--
These two groups showed expected sex differences on potency
scales for Actual and Ideal Self, but the men also assigned
a higher rating to Ideal Self on the evaluative factor at
the end of training. These data are presented in Tables
71 and 72 in the Appendix.
Prior to training, the high ranked female group
gave itself a comparatively modest rating of Actual Self,
resulting in a significant difference on this concept
between the two groups. The females felt enough better
169
about themselves at the end of training to eliminate this
significance.
Although given a slightly lowered posttest rating
on the evaluative factor by both groups, the concept
Teachers was perceived with significantly more favor by
males than females both before and after training.
Low ranked males versus low ranked females.--The
low ranked female group's tendency to "scatter" concepts
in their semantic space made for differing patterns be
tween these two groups of low ranked trainees.
The low ranked females tended to resemble the total
low ranked group more in that both the Slow Learner and
Average Student were isolated from the Counseling concept
before and after training. The low ranked men made this
distinction before training, but not after training,
although the distances at the end of the year just missed
being significant at the .05 level.
Relationships between Knowledge.
Attitudes, and Rankings
The major issue with which this study was concerned
was whether or not the extent of professional information
possessed could serve as an indicator of potential as a
170
counselor, provided that attitudes which interfered with
the utilization of this knowledge were either not present
at all, or eliminated through the training process.
It seemed reasonable to hypothesize that, were this
the case, counselors scoring high on a professional
achievement test would also be highly effective, or, if not
highly effective, would show attitudinal differences from
those counselors scoring high on an achievement test who
were effective.
Consequently, two new subgroups were formed from
among the high and low ranked counselors. Those counselors
in their respective groups who also scored above the median
on the NDEA Comprehensive Examination formed these new
groups. Of the thirty-two high ranked counselors, twenty-
one were also above the median on the NDEA Comprehensive
Examination. Of an equal number of low ranked counselors,
twelve were also above the median.
For convenience, the group high on both criteria
was called the "high-high" group, and the group high in
achievement but low in ranking was called the "high-low"
group.
Within group differences.--It can be seen through
171
perusal of Tables 75, 76, 77, and 78 (see Appendix) that
the two groups differed considerably in relationships
between various concepts. Of particular interest was the
fact that both the much-maligned Slow Learner and Average
Student were set significantly apart from Counseling by the
high knowledge, but ineffectual group of counselors (Table
25). The attitudinal pattern shown was one that was
fairly typical of all the low ranked groups, regardless of
whether or not they had a great deal of didactic informa
tion about counseling.
The particular combination just described charac
terized both groups \dien they were selected for training
(Tables 24 and 25). The high-high group, however, elim
inated the distinction between these concepts.
The high-low group drew some distinctions between
concepts which have a "highly desirable" flavor as counsel
ing attitudes. The Actual Self, Ideal Self, Counseling,
and Counselor were all clearly differentiated from Punish
ment .
Furthermore, this differentiation was not present
in either group before training, and took place only in the
high knowledge, but less effective group.
TABLE 24
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE HIGH KNOWLEDGE HIGH RANKED GROUP
Pretesting Posttesting
Concepts Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Slow Learner-
Ideal Self
-2.137 N.S.
Ideal Self-
Teachers
2.042 N.S.
Ideal Self-
Average Student
3.055 2.517
Counselor-
Average Student
-2.214 N.S.
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.08
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 2.83
N - 21
DF = 19
TABLE 25
SIGNIFICANT t VALUES BETWEEN MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE HIGH KNOWLEDGE LOW RANKED GROUP
Concepts
Pretesting Posttesting
Factors Factors
Eval. Potency Activity Eval. Potency Activity
Slow Learner-Ideal Self -2.102 -2.017
Slow Learner-Counseling
-2.800 -3.111
Slow Learner-Counselor -2.614 N.S.
Counse1ing-Average Student
2.830 2.412
Average Student-Counselor -2.214 N.S.
Gifted Student-Counselor -2.516 N.S.
Average Student-Punishment N.S. 2.359
Ideal Self-Punishment N.S. 2.252
Punishment-Counseling N.S. N.S. -3.639
Punishment -Counse lor N.S.
Slow Learner-College N.S.
Gifted Student-Slow Learner N.S.
Counseling-College N.S. -2.253
Counseling-Gifted Student N.S. -3.881
Value of t necessary for significance at the .05 level: 2.23
Value of t necessary for significance at the .01 level: 3.17
N = 12
DF = 10
174
Between group differences.--Inspection of Tables
79 and 80 In the Appendix shows that there was only one
significant difference which was present at the time of
entrance into the institute program which was not eliminated
during the year. This is the difference on the activity
factor for the concept Counseling.
The high-high group saw Counseling as significantly
more active than the high-low group at both testing times.
In both instances, the difference was significant at the
.01 level of confidence, and even beyond in the case of
posttest results. While the high-high group did not
necessarily polarize activity scores, they viewed Counseling
on the active side of neutrality. The high-lows were just
the reverse.
This was an interesting finding in view of the fact
that both groups saw their Actual Selves as active. The
high“low group who saw Counseling as passive, had higher
mean activity factor scores for Actual Self on both pre-
and posttests.
In an effort to shed more light on this situation,
the raw data were examined from the standpoint of the
absence of conflicting signs for the concepts Actual Self
and Counseling on the activity factor, i.e., Actual Self
175
active, Counseling passive, and vice versa.
For the high-high group on the posttest, sixteen
met this criterion, and five did not. In the high-low
group, one met the criterion and eleven did not. The same
inspection procedure was followed with pretest data. The
distribution was seventeen meeting this criterion and four
not meeting this criterion for the high-high group. Five
trainees met the criterion, and seven did not in the high-
low group. Chi squares were then computed for both sets of
data. Results were significant at the .05 level pretest
(X^ * 4.50) and beyond the .01 level for the posttest
results (X^ “ 6.63).
High knowledge, effective counselor-trainees, then,
were more "congruent" in the way they viewed themselves in
relation to the way they viewed counseling than the high
knowledge, ineffective group.
Summary of Findings
Total group.--Group meanings tended to converge
into constellations of similar judgments, forming a basic
kind of pattern which also proved to be roughly typical of
all other subgroups.
The concepts Counselor, Counseling, and Ideal Self
176
were highly valued. The term "benevolent strength" was
used to describe the group's attitude toward these concepts.
Actual Self, College, and Gifted Student were per
ceived in similar terms. Teachers were seen as well mean
ing, but somevdiat weak and shallow. Discipline and School
Administration seemed to be similar in meaning to the
group.
There was perhaps some antipathy toward the concept
of Punishment, but it was nevertheless seen as dangerous
and strong.
The attitude toward Gifted Student was much more
favorable than that shown toward the Slow Learner and
Average Student. The group seemed either indifferent or
ambivalent than the Counselor, Counseling, and Ideal Self,
Males and females.--Broadly defined, the groups
were quite similar in attitudes. The basic pattern of
concept "clusters" was evident in both the male and female
groups.
Females showed a tendency to see themselves as more
tense and excitable than did the men, but both groups moved
in this direction from pre- to posttesting. Distances
between Ideal and Actual Self were decreased after training
177
by both groups.
Attitudes of both groups toward the Slow Learner
and Average Student were similar to each other and to that
shown by the total group. These attitudes were present at
the start of training and showed minimal change.
Institute groups.--Each of the four groups entered
training viewing the counseling process as being charac
terized by passivity, while seeing themselves as active
types of people. Two groups changed toward a more harmoni
ous relationship between the two concepts. Two Institutes
retained the pretest pattern.
All of the groups displayed the basic pattern of
attitudes characteristic of the group as a whole.
Institute D had the most "scattering" of concepts,
rejecting both the Slow Learner and Average Student prior to
and after training.
Institute D was also the only group to reject the
Average and Slow Students from the sphere of counseling
both before and after training.
This group also rejected the idea of the counselor
as a disciplinarian, and was the only group to do so.
No group made any significant changes in individual
178
mean factor scores.
Ranked groups.--At the conclusion of training,
three of the four low ranked subgroups, i.e., low ranked,
low ranked females, and low ranked-high in knowledge, set
the Slow Learner and the Average Student significantly
apart from Counseling. The low ranked men showed the
identical tendency, but the distances between these concepts
were just short of significance.
None of the groups made significant changes in
individual mean factor scores, i.e., Actual Self pretest,
Actual Self posttest.
None of the high ranked groups made the differen
tiation referred to above by the time training was over, but
high ranked males did show this pattern at the start of
training. Low ranked males were similar to high ranked
males in this respect, since they, too, brought the Slow
Learner and Average Student into the sphere of counseling
during the course of the year. High ranked females did not
show this pattern of differentiation at any time.
Attitudes of low ranked groups showed a tendency to
be less stable, and were characterized by more "scatter"
between various concept means. This was particularly true
179
of low ranked women and high achieving-low ranked trainees.
Once again, the basic pattern of "clusters" was in
evidence.
High ranked trainees looked upon the counseling
process as more dynamic and active than did low ranked
groups, although both viewed the process with considerable
favor. This trend was present at the outset, becoming even
more pronounced during the training experience.
Knowledge, attitudes, and ranking.--Those trainees
scoring above the median in didactic knowledge, and who
were also effective, tended to perceive themselves in a
manner consistent with the way they perceived the counsel
ing process. The exact reverse was true with the high
knowledge, ineffective counselors, who perceived them
selves differently from the way they viewed Counseling.
These attitudinal consistencies and inconsistencies were
present before training, and were not altered during the
institute period.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Several questions were presented in Chapter I which,
hopefully, would be answered through the collection and
analysis of the data described in Chapter IV. Chapter V is
a subjective discussion of these data as they relate to
each of the questions.
One of the characteristics of the Semantic Differ
ential technique is that, while being very flexible and
adaptable to various research situations, it is also very
gross in its description of the different factors. This
characteristic is simultaneously advantageous and disadvan
tageous. Disadvantageous in that it is difficult to de
scribe groups or individuals in refined terms. Advan
tageous in that this very generality stimulates the forma
tion of many hypotheses for further testing. It is from
this standpoint that the present chapter has been conceived-
a free-swinging discussion involving subjective interpreta-
180
181
tions regarding possible meanings and implications of the
data, mainly in terms of hypothetical possibilities.
Changes in Knowledge
Question one, regarding changes in knowledge, seems
to have been unequivocally answered with a yes. There is
little doubt but that all the Institute Groups achieved
this objective with resounding success. Those counselors
who would eventually be judged as having the most potential
as public school counselors, already knew more than the
group who were to be judged as having the least such poten
tial, at least as far as counseling techniques were con
cerned. This could be due to more spontaneous interest,
more prior experience, or possibly greater scholastic
aptitude on the part of the high ranked group.
Changes in Attitude
In a conventional sense, the answer to question
two, regarding whether or not there were significant
attitude changes, would have to be no. None of the factor
score means changed significantly from pre- to posttesting.
However, the Differential is not exactly a conven
tional measuring instrument, and the matter of changes in
distances between concepts must be given a hearing. From
182
this perspective, it appears that some attitudes did show
change during the training period. These changes are more
fully discussed below.
Attitudes of Ranked Groups
In a very general way, the findings with regard to
basic attitudinal configurations seem to show that high and
low ranked groups tended to "think alike," with two very
important exceptions, which will be discussed in the sec
tion on knowledge, attitudes, and ranking. All the groups,
in other words, followed a typical pattern.
At the top of the Evaluative Scale, receiving almost
polarized ratings, were Counselor, Counseling, and Ideal
Self. This may merely indicate some rather indiscriminate
scale marking behavior, yet the clusters make logical
"sense." The trainees apparently had high idealized Stand
ards for themselves, which included Counseling and the
Counselor.
It is interesting to note that, prior to training,
all institutes, while placing the counselor high on the
Evaluative Factor, tended to view him as a superior,
powerful, yet passive individual. It is not difficult to
fit this gross picture into the "conventional" one of the
183
counselor who is wise, good, firm, and yet who does not
"do" anything except quietly listen and emit an occasional
"mm-m."
Nevertheless, anyone who has worked closely with
counselors beginning their training in the institute situa
tion realizes the tremendous personal struggle many of the
new trainees go through to try to keep from "doing" some
thing for, or "saying" something to, a client. Their strug
gle may be with this idealized preconception. Resolving
this conflict may be one of the most crucial issues in the
training process.
Those counselors who turned out "best" seemed to
have greater success in resolving the conflict than those
who turned out "poorest."
Moving down the Evaluative ladder was a "reality"
constellation as opposed to the "idealized." Comprising
this cluster were the Self, Gifted Students, College, and,
for the most part, Teachers. On an attitudinal basis, the
group saw themselves as much more like teachers than coun
selors. They seemed to see themselves as stronger than
teachers, and as strong as counselors, but no better than
teachers in an attitudinal sense. This "better" position
was reserved for the Counselor, along with the Ideal Self.
184
One might guess that the process of complete identification
as a counselor was in a transitional state. It is inter
esting to speculate regarding what structure these con
stellations might take a year or two after training, when
the counselors have had a chance to function on their own
in actual "combat." Counselor might be brought down to the
"realism" level--such a trend toward devaluation was noted
in posttest results.
In view of NDEA objectives, the identification of
College with Gifted Student seems quite appropriate. It,
too, was there when training was instituted.
A step closer to neutrality was another cluster,
this one attitudinally below the previous one one the
evaluation ladder. Gathered here were School Administra
tors and Discipline. Perhaps the groups see administrators
as the ones who should take care of discipline problems,
and this view certainly would not be inconsistent with the
opinions of many counselor educators.
Occupying low status on the evaluative "totem pole"
were Slow Learners and Average Students. Some interesting
speculations arise from the contemplation of the configura
tion, vrtiich will be dealt with shortly.
Punishment was lowest on the Evaluative Scale, all
185
by itself, in isolation from all other concepts. This can
be viewed as a favorable state of affairs, and in some
instances this situation did not come about until the coun
selors had received training.
Knowledge. Attitudes, and Competence
The attitudes of the successful counselors as
opposed to those of the least successful stand out most
clearly when the picture is made complete through adding to
it the role of knowledge. Holding knowledge constant,
three rather sharp attitude differences were apparent.
First of all, high knowledge, but less effective
counselors very definitely put slow learners and average
students out of the counseling sphere. High academic,
effective counselors did not do this.
Secondly, high knowledge, ineffective counselors
put punishment out of the sphere of counseling. The reason
for this appears to be in the extremely high value assigned
to counseling. The mean scores for the high-low group on
the Evaluative Factor for both Slow Learner and Average
Student exceeded those of the high-high group, yet the
distance is significant only in the case of the former.
Punishment is given a negative rating by the high-low group,
186
but not by the high-high group.
Third, in the matter of what, for want of any more
appropriate word, has been labeled "congruence," the high-
high group showed a significant tendency to perceive self
and counseling consistently on the Activity Scale. The
high-low group showed just the opposite attitude.
What reconcilement can be made? Number one, here
were two groups of trainees, each with an extensive command
of basic knowledge of the field. Both groups placed high
value upon the process of counseling. They viewed it as
associated with worth, wisdom, fairness, profundity, and
strength. However, one group, the least effective group,
saw counseling as more passive, more relaxed. The more
effective group saw counseling as a more active kind of
process, with more tension involved. The crucial differ
ence, however, is that in the first case, the ineffective
group did not truly "fit" this conception in terms of the
way they perceived themselves as persons.
If this were truly the case, such a group might be
inclined to do two things: (1) manifest the "right" atti
tudes to compensate for the uncertainties inherent in not
being "oneself" in an occupational role, and (2) tend to
reject anyone likely to present a counseling situation
187
where these uncertainties would be called to the fore. The
data seemed to indicate that this might have been the case
in view of the differentiation between counseling and pun
ishment, and the separation of the Slow Learner and Average
Student from Counseling on the part of the ineffective
group.
How might these hypotheses relate to actual coun
seling behavior? Both groups, through their neutral ratings
on the Differential, might have been manifesting ambivalent
attitudes toward the Average Student and Slow Learner.
Osgood states that checking the neutral position on a scale
may be an "out" from conflict aroused when attitudes toward
a concept are ambivalent. Certainly, this could have been
the case with both groups regarding these two concepts.
Trainees knew they probably "ought to" have an attitude of
"acceptance" toward these two types of clients. Acceptance
is a cherished counseling attitude, and these counselors
surely "cherished" counseling. Yet, by the same token,
average and slow students (as well as a myriad of other
types) many times do not respond in such a way as to permit
a counselor to look successful. Therefore, these two types
of clients could also be perceived as threatening. Resolv
ing the conflict in the test situation could easily be
188
accomplished through checking a fairly neutral Evaluation
position.
A counselor trainee who has a shaky, or transition
al, identification as a counselor, i.e., who is incongru-
ent, coupled with a strong need to become a "good counsel
or," may be, then, a pretender, with a strong need to "look
like a good counselor should." Of necessity, he will
need certain results, may perceive his average student
client as a threat, and respond on this basis. The client
may perceive all these counselor attitudes--"falsity,"
ambivalence, defensiveness, and respond to them in kind.
The all-important counseling relationship may never develop.
Regarding attitudes per se, Tyler's thoughts, which
also were recorded in Chapter I, are quite pertinent. She
points out that (1) there is widespread uncertainty con
cerning just what the "right" counselor attitudes should
be, (2) there may be no "right" set of attitudes, but only
those qualities vdiich enable one to accept and understand
other people, and that (3) these are difficult to evaluate
with precision and may change with experience and/or train
ing.
The findings of this study seem to fit her frame
work reasonably well. First of all, the Differential
189
Technique does not even attempt to describe a particular
set of attitudes with nice precision. It may not be pos
sible, or particularly necessary, to do so.
Secondly, the attitudes Tyler refers to may be, in
effect, the degree of congruence between the way one sees
oneself in relationship to what one expects of oneself.
Congruity between the two might lead to commitment, sense
of purpose, and genuineness. Lack of congruity might lead
to an inability fully to commit oneself to the job, con
fusion regarding goals, and pretension.
The congruent counselor would have less need to do
battle with himself over who he was and how he should be
behaving, leaving himself more "available," clearing away
barriers to relating and consequent understanding. His
attention could be focused more on the clients' needs than
on his own needs.
The incongruent counselor consciously or uncon
sciously, would be constantly threatened with exposure,
using up valuable energy in defensive behavior, distracted
by his role conflict, "unavailable" to the client.
If, as is widely believed, clients respond primar
ily to the person and not to the techniques he employs,
certainly the congruent counselor stands a much better
190
chance of building a relationship, wherein, as a "commit
ted" person, he is "available" to try to understand
another.
This may mean that the congruent counselor is free
to make a concerted attempt at understanding another, with
the increased likelihood that because of his evident sin
cerity and interest, the client may make himself available
for understanding.
It might be advantageous if counselor educators
could become unshackled from the never-ending search for a
precise description of the "right" attitudes. There may
be no "right" attitudes, no "right" way, but instead a per
son who has committed himself to, and who understands the
knowledge of, his field. Given these, a counselor can then
more fully devote himself to the lifetime job of learning
better to understand and help his clients.
To summarize, successful counselors evidenced a
combination of a high level of didactic knowledge about
counseling, a perception of themselves reasonably consist
ent with the way they viewed counseling, and inclusion of
a wider variety of clients within the sphere of the coun
seling process.
What can the counselor educator draw from this
191
discussion that might be an aid to selecting candidates for
training? Several of the findings should be discussed
first of all.
1. Attitudes of potentially successful and unsuc
cessful counselors actually seemed to be more similar than
different in basic patterns. The basic pattern character
istic of both was stable and resistant to change.
2. Congruence, as defined by this study, was a
characteristic which differentiated the two groups. It
was present at the time of selection, and proved very
resistant to change during the course of training.
3. The attitude of rejection of slow learners and
average students was associated with ineffectiveness. Such
rejection, however, was present in both groups at the start
of training, but was changed by the potentially effective
counselors while in training.
4. Level of knowledge was positively related to
potential effectiveness, but was not a guarantee unless it
existed in combination with the attitudes just described.
While the amount of knowledge did increase to a significant
extent, relative position with regard to the median did
not change. Of the twenty-one high ranked counselors who
were above the median on posttesting, eighteen were also
192
above the median on pretesting. Nine of the twelve low
ranked counselors who were above the median on posttesting
were also above it on pretesting.
In view of the foregoing discussion, then, a coun
selor educator looking for criteria with which to screen
candidates might use the following guidelines:
1. The higher the score on the NDEA Comprehensive
Examination, the greater the likelihood of suc
cess.
2. If said candidate scored reasonably high on the
comprehensives, and showed an absence of con
flicting signs on the Activity Factor Scores
for the concepts of Actual Self and Counseling,
he would be more likely to be effective eventu
ally than if conflicting signs were present.
3. It makes less difference whether or not the
attitude test pattern shows a significant dif
ference between Counseling and Slow Learner
and/or Counseling and the Average Student.
These relationships seem amenable to change,
provided the candidate is congruent, as defined
in this study.
Admittedly, this has been a "free-swinging" discus-
193
sion which may have forced some entirely innocent numbers
to "say" things they really do not "say"; especially since
some of the subgroups' N's were perilously small. On the
other hand, this may be a very useful function of the
Differential technique--the generation of testable hypoth
eses.
Cross validation of these findings appears to be
an important next step to see whether or not prediction of
eventual success can be accomplished. It goes without say
ing that only a few significant differences out of an
enormous number of possibilities were found. Perhaps these
findings are purely accidental and impermanent. Only
follow-up research can reveal whether or not this is truly
the case.
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Problem
Purpose.--This study was undertaken in an attempt
to learn more about the relationships obtaining between
counselor-trainees' knowledge of the field, their attitudes
toward concepts related to counseling, and rated compe
tence. Additional purposes were to ascertain the influence
of training upon these two attributes, and to translate all
the findings into criteria for selection of future trainees.
Problem. - -The specific problem was to determine (1)
the extent of changes in both knowledge of the guidance and
counseling field, and attitudes occurring in a combined
group of counselor-trainees during the course of an NDEA
Guidance Institute, (2) whether or not there were signifi
cant relationships between knowledge, attitudes, and rated
effectiveness as a counselor, (3) whether or not there were
194
195
significant differences in attitudes between high ranked
and low ranked counselor-trainees having superior know
ledge of the field, and (4) if so, whether or not these
attitudes were in evidence at the beginning of training.
Hypotheses.--Four hypotheses were developed, and
data were gathered to test each of them.
1. There would be no relationship between either
pretest or posttest scores on the NDEA Compre
hensive Examination and rated effectiveness at
the conclusion of training.
2. There would be no relationship between either
pretest or posttest attitude scores on the
Webb-Harris Semantic Differential Test and
rated effectiveness at the conclusion of train
ing.
3. Those counselors having superior knowledge of
the guidance and counseling field who were
rated as most effective by Institute staff
would show no significant differences in atti
tude from those counselor-trainees having super
ior knowledge of the field who were rated as
least effective.
196
4. In the event the previous hypothesis was found
to be untenable, the attitudes characterizing
high rated counselors having superior knowledge
of the field would have shown no change from
the beginning of training.
Procedure
Sample.--The entire counselor-trainee population of
four cooperating NDEA Guidance Institutes was studied. The
four groups combined yielded a total sample size of one
hundred and nineteen people.
Instruments.--To yield the necessary data, two
experimental instruments were used. The NDEA Comprehensive
Examination was administered to obtain the level of didac
tic information. The Webb-Harris version of Osgood's
Semantic Differential technique for the measurement of
meaning was used to obtain attitude scores.
Data-gathering procedure.--Both tests were admin
istered to the entire sample on two occasions. Pretesting
was done in September, shortly after each institute opened.
Posttesting was done in June, shortly before the close of
each institute.
Institute directors and supervisors ranked each
trainee at the end of training on a criterion of potential
as a public school counselor.
Analysis of data.-"The raw data were punched on
cards. Programs available at the University of Southern
California computer laboratory were used in the computing
of t tests between comprehensive test score means.
A program was developed for the Semantic Differen
tial, and is available through the School of Education at
the University of Southern California. The data were run
for the most part at Western Data Processing Center on the
IBM 7094 computer. All running time was donated by Inter
national Business Machines Corporation.
Data were analyzed by total group, sex, individual
institutes, high ranked versus low ranked groups, high and
low ranked groups by sex, and high knowledge-low ranked
versus high knowledge-high ranked groups.
Testing of Hypotheses
Null hypothesis number l.--This hypothesis pre
dicted that there would be no relationship between either
pretest or posttest scores on the NDEA Comprehensive
198
Examination, and judged potential as a public school coun
selor.
Findings indicated that high ranked trainees pos
sessed a significantly greater quantity of didactic infor
mation than low ranked trainees at the end of the training
year. Posttest results yielded a difference between Total
Score means of 10.81, which was significant at the .05
level. None of the differences between Subtest means was
significant, however.
The Subtest means were further analyzed using the
Mann-Whitney U Test. Results confirmed the essential
superiority of the high ranked group over the low ranked
group in the matter of knowledge of the professional areas
measured by the NDEA Comprehensive Examination.
A pretest difference between Total Score means of
8.82 was not significant. The difference between means on
the Counseling Techniques Subtest was significant at the
.05 level, however.
A point biserial correlation coefficient of .17
between Total Pretest Score and the criterion was not sig
nificant, indicating that statistical prediction of post-
training rank was not feasible in spite of the consistent
superiority of the high ranked group.
199
In view of these results, null hypothesis number
one was untenable, and consequently rejected.
Null hypothesis number 2.--The second null hypoth
esis stated that there would be no relationship between
either pretest or posttest scores on the Webb-Harris Seman
tic Differential and judged potential.
Hig^i and low ranked trainees tended to have many
more similarities than differences in attitude. Basic
attitudinal predispositions of both groups were very simi
lar, indicating a tendency to ’’ think alike” on many con
cepts related to counseling.
Even so, a number of differences were found between
various subgroups of high and low ranked trainees. The
only relationship between tested attitudes and rankings
which consistently characterized such groups, however, was
a significant difference between evaluative factor score
means between the concepts Counseling-Slow Learner and
Counseling-Average Student. This difference was present
in three of four low ranked subgroups, but not present in
any high ranked group. This relationship did not charac
terize the pretest data.
There was also a pre- and posttest difference
200
between high and low ranked group means on the activity
factor for the concept Counseling.
However, the small number of significant differ
ences both within and between groups did not seem to war
rant the rejection of null hypothesis number 2, so this
hypothesis was accepted.
Null hypothesis number 3.--Null hypothesis number
three stated that those counselor-trainees having superior
knowledge of the guidance and counseling field who were
rated as most effective by Institute staff members would
show no significant differences in attitudes from those
counselor-trainees having superior knowledge of the field
who were rated as least effective.
Findings concerning this hypothesis indicated that
it was not sustained. Significant differences between the
two groups were found on the activity factor for the con
cept Counseling.
The high knowledge-high ranked group also showed a
significant tendency toward the absence of conflicting
signs between activity factor score means for the concepts
Actual Self and Counseling.
The high knowledge-low ranked group manifested
201
significant within-group differences on the evaluative
factor between means for the concepts Counseling-Slow
Learner and Counseling-Average Student. This was not the
case with the high knowledge-high ranked group.
Null hypothesis number 4.--The fourth null hypoth
esis stated that in the event the previous hypothesis
was found to be untenable, the attitudes characterizing
high ranked counselor-trainees having superior knowledge
of the field would have shown no change from the beginning
of training.
Findings relevant to this hypothesis were equiv
ocal. The first two of the above differences were also
present at the start of training. That is to say, the
activity factor score differences and the tendency toward
congruence or incongruence. However, the isolation of the
Slow Learner was present in both groups at the start of
training, but was eliminated by the high knowledge-high
ranked group.
Since the data were so equivocal in this respect,
null hypothesis number 4 could neither be accepted nor
rejected.
Conclusions
The level of didactic information possessed by
counselor-trainees, as measured by the NDEA
Comprehensive Examination, can be significantly
raised during the course of an NDEA Guidance
Institute.
Neither amount of didactic information nor
attitudinal characteristics alone adequately
characterized the more successful counselor-
trainees. Rather, knowledge and attitudes
seemed to combine in some form of favorable
combination in this sample of counselor-train
ees who were judged to have relatively higher
potential as public school counselors.
Drastic changes in attitudes, as measured by
the Webb-Harris Semantic Differential, are not
likely to take place during the course of an
NDEA Guidance Institute.
No predictors of later ranking were found in
which enough statistical confidence could be
placed to allow them to be considered as ade
quate criteria for selection of counselor-
trainees .
The problem of selection of candidates for
training is seriously complicated by the mani
festation of changes in tested attributes dur
ing the course of training.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
The large amount of data resulting from the use of
computers was organized into three basic table prototypes
as an aid to interpretation. These three table prototypes
are explained below:
Matrix of t test values for any one group.-"Values
of t for all three factors were combined into one table,
of which Table 26 is a prototype. The first number in
each grouping of three is the t value for the evaluative
factor. The middle number represents the t values for the
potency factor, and the lower number the t value for the
activity factor.
These tables were used to determine whether or not
significant differences existed between various factor
score means, either pre- or posttest within a group.
Pre- and posttest mean factor scores for any one
group.--Table 28 is the prototype for this type of table.
These were used to describe the position of each concept
205
206
with regard to each factor, and to determine whether or
not any individual factor score mean changed significantly
from pre- to posttesting.
Differences between mean factor scores for separate
groups.--This type of table, of which Table 51 is the
prototype, furnished the basis for deciding whether or not
two groups differed with respect to mean factor scores for
any concept, either pre- or posttesting.
TABLE 26
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE TOTAL GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.747
1.176
0.504
1.283
0.956
0.694
0.277
0.080
0.152
0.147
0.380
0.142
0.088
0.133
0.023
0.652
0.003
0.155
0.857
0.203
0.778
0.154
0.116
0.304
1.087
0.834
0.213
0.172
0.331
0.297
0,793
0.156
0.710
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.989b
1.655
0.059
0.882
1.037
0.398
1.327
0.764
0.400
1.325
1.243
0.445
0.552
1.128
0.612
2.576a
1.353
0.235
1.726
1.415
0.715
0.742
0.549
0.382
1.370
1.581
0.773
2.294'
1.378
0.128
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.007
0.451
0.468
1.249
0.954
0.536
0.817
0.509
0.564
1.402
0.591
0.685
0.467
0.437
0.205
1.110
0.522
0.913
2.163®
1.405
0.494
1.492
0.326
0.869
0.422
0.561
0.084
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.196
0.552
0.023
0.428
0.030
0.119
0.371
0.100
0.330
0.877
0.075
0.603
0.405
0.009
0.462
0.502
0.811
0.059
0.144
0.211
0.499
0.837
0.030
0.537
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.209
0.514
0.093
0.557
0.401
0.288
0.907
0.588
0.687
0.300
0.565
0.431
0.807
0.420
0.090
0.026
0.746
0.432
0.869
0.618
0.655
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.793
0.163
0.255
0.597
0.064
0.749
0.042
0.026
0.305
0.856
0.952
0.171
0.223
0.237
0.298
0.525
0.000
0.644
a
207
TABLE 26--Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.000 1.251 0.736 0.112 0.453 1.175
0.000 0.221 0.132 0.819 0.352 0.146
0.000 0.797 0.084 0.371 0.087 0.726
0.000 0.680 1.843 1.000 0.029
0.000 0.097 1.261 0.185 0.081
0.000 1.018 0.655 0.938 0.186
0.000 1.168 0.369 0.626
0.000 1.111 0.326 0.028
0.000 0.584 0.009 1.040
0.000 0.859 1.805
0.000 1.256 1.225
0.000 0.565 0.608
0.000 1.025
0.000 0.277
0.000 1.019
a Significant at .05 level of confidence N - 119
b Significant at .01 level of confidence DF » 117
208
TABLE 27
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE TOTAL GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.756
1.404
0.439
1.084
0.785
0.443
0.753
0.055
0.119
0.583
0.558
0.052
0.721
0.082
0.041
1.290
0.162
0.218
0.594
0.123
0.502
0.367
0.177
0.321
1.272
0.855
0.201
0.455
0.159
0.180
0.832
0.145
0.479
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.412a
1.715
0.116
0.489
1.040
0.387
0.976
0.608
0.479
0.566
1.188
0.413
0.149
1.078
0.605
1.926
1.368
0.007
1.216
1.509
0.745
0.472
0.715
0.372
1.154
1.601
0.688
2.116
1.729
0.054
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.330
0.410
0.295
1.354
0.588
0.400
1.401
0.589
0.351
1.923
0.604
0.601
0.346
0.360
0.131
1.189
0.415
0.704
2.077a
1.237
0.280
1.278
0.367
0.628
0.176
0.409
0.070
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.415
0.515
0.091
0.048
0.012
0.084
0.549
0.100
0.339
1.140
0.164
0.438
0.534
0.153
0.573
0.204
0.604
0.085
0.446
0.190
0.347
1.356
0.175
0.381
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.314
0.498
0.005
0.963
0.415
0.275
1.064
0.716
0.498
0.149
0.768
0.428
0.697
0.081
0.199
0.090
0.734
0.267
1.199
0.779
0.472
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.831
0.110
0.332
1.187
0.222
0.496
0.448
0.243
0.360
0.250
0.743
0.148
0.358
0.266
0.211
1.239
0.260
0.423
209
TABLE 27— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.753
0.275
0.728
1.074
0.328
0.057
0.494
0.689
0.413
0.965
0.346
0.058
1.706
0.335
0.653
8 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.819
0.024
0.781
1.705
0.903
0.370
0.942
0.027
0.692
0.182
0.000
0.083
9 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.936
1.107
0.543
0.062
0.060
0.145
1.044
0.029
0.824
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.790
1.065
0.442
1.858
1.047
0.313
11 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.094
0.034
0.760
a Significant at .05 level of significance N - 119
DF - 117
210
TABLE 28
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE TOTAL GROUP
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
Pre
Actual Self 1.420
Slow Learner - .013
Ideal Self 2.447
School Administration 1.092
Teachers 1.290
Discipline
1.517
Punishment .645
Counseling 2.092
College 1.561
Average Student .502
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
1.485 .106 .542 .548
.048 .098 - .475 - .494
2.248 .286 1.074 .971
.618 .391 .624 .494
1.011 .315 .202 .034
.679 .701 .649 .483
.120 .607 .544 .410
1.962 .176 .693 .647
1.151 .514 .632 .630
.418 .126 - .071 - .025
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
011 .534 .553 .025
027 - .006 .095 .120
176 - .067 .195 .342
149 .389 .447 .075
244 .405 .513 .136
229 .508 .517 .009
192 .725 .775 .048
088 - .263 .088 .386
004 .819 .834 .017
097 .340 .391 .079
TABLE 28"-Continued
Evaluative : Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
Pre Post
t
Pre Post
t
Pre Post
t
Gifted Student 1.263 1.103 .198 .813 .666 .267 .828 .721 .127
Counselor 2.111 2.109 .003 .649 .647 .004 - .134 .141 .347
N - 119 DF - 117
NJ
*-*
N3
TABLE 29
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE MALE GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.961
1.910
0.383
1.190
1.031
0.486
0.336
0.238
0.029
0.097
0.846
0.041
0.065
0.229
0.174
0.734
0.337
0.290
0.845
0.275
0.657
0.119
0.412
0.444
1.213
1.571
0.057
0.281
0.200
0.358
0.732
0.110
0.502
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.863b
2.410a
0.014
0.899
1.280
0.460
1.407
0.949
0.348
1.314
1.297
0.518
0.570
1.217
0.646
2.449a
1.422
0.219
1.620
1.441
0.740
0.717
0.646
0.411
1.295
1.580
0.779
2.286a
1.574
0.033
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.128
0.949
0.499
1.156
1.527
0.451
0.788
0.966
0.602
1.426
1.007
0.687
0.407
0.956
0.279
1.073
1.217
0.854
2.151a
2.253a
0.466
1.483
1.309
0.855
0.389
1.170
0.063
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.302
0.576
0.083
0.478
0.030
0.161
0.350
0.119
0.342
0.939
0.054
0.802
0.424
0.077
0.472
0.424
0.981
0.097
0.482
0.117
0.372
0.109
0.058
0.550
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.138
0.486
0.190
0.637
0.382
0.363
0.801
0.554
0.714
0.205
0.481
0.489
0.907
0.483
0.017
0.155
0.645
0.369
0.748
0.600
0.546
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.775
0.156
0.217
0.572
0.030
0.856
0.029
0.115
0.242
0.884
0.885
0.240
0.280
0.093
0.172
0.509
0.030 k,
0.627 £
TABLE 29— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.339
0.194
0.872
0.774
0.038
0.044
0.115
0.781
0.396
0.437
0.229
0.024
1.309
0.174
0.693
8 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.657
0.160
1.075
1.825
1.247
0.736
1.006
0.071
1.021
0.047
0.000
0.292
9 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.115
0.979
0.550
0.470
0.290
0.087
0.649
0.186
0.962
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.797
1.280
0.508
1.829
1.367
0.534
11 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.054
0.083
1.003
£.05 level of significance
.01 level of significance
N - 77
DF = 75
TABLE 30
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE MALE GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000 1.870 1.091
0.000 1.828 0.942
0.000 0.299 0.401
2 0.000 2.383
0.000 2.504
0.000 0.037
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
4
5
6
0.821 0.537 0.721
0.480 1.092 0.361
0.025 0.004 0.116
0.385 1.054 0.558
0.959 0.507 1.185
0.360 0.372 0.458
1.364 1.370 1.403
0.985 1.453 1.135
0.373 0.419 0.502
0.000 0.572 0.139
0.000 0.534 0.125
0.000 0.035 0.157
0.000 0.383
0.000 0.609
0.000 0.128
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.226
0.388
0.194
0.517
0.216
0.434
0.361
0.271
0.367
0.037
1.123
0.518
1.805
1.323
0.117
1.275
1.443
0.680
1.838
0.998
0.546
0.352
0.908
0.085
1.145
1.040
0.724
0.369
0.075
0.253
1.143
0.254
0.470
0.672
0.261
0.516
0.891
0.554
0.216
0.977
0.763
0.450
0.110
0.886
0.446
0.748
0.071
0.162
1.092
0.148
0.572
0.459
0.157
0.275
1.312
1.329
0.157
0.563
0.221
0.228
0.870
0.266
0.465
0.555
0.740
0.295
1.223
1.563
0.621
2.164
1.649
0.146
2.087a
2.089a
0.298
1.340
1.091
0.650
0.173
1.093
0.104
0.042
0.493
0.156
0.475
0.279
0.303
1.439
0.284
0.482
0.770
0.060
0.206
0.041
0.837
0.282
1.225
0.845
0.514
0.210
0.767
0.276
0.291
0.195
0.133
1.240
0.191
0.609
215
TABLE 30--Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.000 1.633 0.986 0.421 0.856 1.617
0.000 0.187 0.238 0.718 0.241 0.240
0.000 0.653 0.116 0.347 0.000 0.635
0.000 0.725 1.564 0.967 0.216
0.000 0.021 0.843 0.023 0.012
0.000 0.737 0.357 0.686 0.021
0.000 0.973 0.184 1.063
0.000 1.139 0.055 0.038
0.000 0.562 0.174 0.861
0.000 0.741 1.920
0.000 1.009 1.046
0.000 0.454 0.383
0.000 1.214
0.000 0.018
0.000 0.842
a.05 level of significance N ■ 77
DF - 75
216
TABLE 31
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE. POTENCY. AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE FEMALE GROUP
1 2 3 4
0.000 1.480 1.492 0.195
0.000 0.510 0.834 0.531
0.000 0.773 1.193 0.469
0.000 3.312b 0.859
0.000 1.117 0.767
0.000 0.164 0.292
0.000 1.020
0.000 0.111
0.000 0.435
0.000
0.000
0.000
5 6 7 8
0.224
0.176
0.370
0.126
1.144
0.372
0.556
0.785
0.096
0.904
1.011
1.033
1.196
0.525
0.524
1.345
1.156
0.316
0.523
0.986
0.549
2.876b
1.240
0.264
1.483
0.352
0.691
0.873
0.238
0.505
1.384
0.069
0.684
0.634
0.315
0.099
0.033
0.517
0.260
0.362
0.030
0.054
0.412
0.076
0.312
0.807
0.106
0.426
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.336
0.574
0.106
0.428
0.437
0.159
1.134
0.652
0.671
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.644
0.181
0.323
0.069
0.146
0.590
9 10 11 12
0.208
1.213
0.074
0.922
0.050
0.533
0.012
1.334
0.207
0.911
0.914
1.210
1.966
1.373
0.676
0.792
0.422
0.330
1.528
1.592
0.790
2.330;
1.108
0.309
1.186
0.370
1.032
2.225a
0.754
0.547
1.509
0.743
0.960
0.485
0.151
0.116
0.378
0.120
0.468
0.540
0.698
0.007
0.207
0.343
0.733
0.869
0.013
0.531
0.471
0.724
0.344
0.651
0.307
0.239
0.206
0.948
0.563
1.136
0.666
0.902
0.876
0.210
0.408
0.132
1.231
0.053
0.553
0.539
0.484
0.010
0.079
0.676
217
TABLE 31--Continued
8
10
11
7 8 9 10 11 12
0.000 0.689 0.107 0.484 1.135 0.595
0.000 0.269 0.318 0.957 0.593 0.089
0.000 0.690 0.143 0.327 0.254 0.788
0.000 0.724 1.898 0.988 0.000
0.000 0.030 1.292 0.370 0.198
0.000 0.946 0.559 0.894 0.000
0.000 1.278 0.238 0.598
0.000 1.473 0.368 0.230
0.000 0.651 0.138 1.207
0.000 0.984 1.785
0.000 1.265 1.014
0.000 0.675 0.747
0.000 0.973
0.000 0.581
0.000 1.155
j*.05 level of confidence N » 42
.01 level of confidence DF » 40
TABLE 32
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE FEMALE GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.084
1.024
0.723
1.037
0.541
0.514
0.678
0.577
0.311
0.724
0.081
0.148
0.808
0.590
0.343
1.593
0.327
0.316
0.792
0.987
0.627
0.440
1.312
0.223
1.270
0.248
0.284
0.313
1.059
0.090
0.748
0.945
0.531
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.719b
1.273
0.365
0.717
1.262
0.451
0.879
0.818
0.685
0.554
1.321
0.382
0.391
1.072
0.781
2.497a
1.612
0.168
1.132
1.824
0.871
0.387
0.716
0.498
.141
1.853
0.823
2.198a
1.900
0.347
3. 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.375
0.392
0.159
1.364
0.139
0.356
1.494
0.318
0.121
2,298a
0.078
0.734
0.355
0.734
0.213
1.378
0.887
0.652
2.082a
0.508
0.223
1.239
0.716
0.577
0.174
0.736
0.038
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.096
0.518
0.201
0.151
0.238
0.028
0.999
0.416
0.505
1.246
0.031
0.380
0.293
0.012
0.692
0.540
0.991
0.027
0.395
0.057
0.428
1.300
0.019
0.231
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.219
0.352
0.184
1.170
0.200
0.417
1.310
0.711
0.606
0.200
0.647
0.384
0.585
0.306
0.195
0.302
0.629
0.240
1.200
0.665
0.423
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.021
0.196
0.618
1.609
0.428
0.366
0.436
0.473
0.492
0.311
0.738
0.048
0.514
0.409
0.314
1.327
0.342 ,
0.163
219
TABLE 32— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.296a
0.482
0.883
1.296
0.497
0.083
0.685
0.660
0.594
1.266
0.594
0.170
2.062a
0.479
0.732
8 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.198
0.036
0.882
2.113a
1.071
0.378
0.953
0.034
0.699
0.108
0.103
0.231
9 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.870
1.127
0.508
0.151
0.069
0.095
1.075
0.053
0.798
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.895
1.228
0.429
1.789
1.011
0.218
11 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.937
0.118
0.658
f.05 level of significance
.01 level of significance
N - 42
DF - 40
TABLE 33
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
Concept
Actual Self
Slow Learner
Ideal Self
School Administration
Teachers
Discipline
Punishment
Counseling
College
Average Student
FOR THE
Evaluative Factor
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
1.468 1.510 .076
.026 .065 . 064
2.406 2.295 .173
1.104 .513 .458
1.390 1.084 .369
1.536 .695 .794
.679 .023 .567
2.068 1.968 .134
1.568 1.182 .422
.536 .471 .703
GROUP
Potency Factor
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
.880 .818 .110
.481 - .464 .024
1.438 1.367 .115
.679 .425 .301
.263 - .019 .387
.701 .536 .214
.594 .487 .145
.724 .656 .118
.620 .640 .033
.052 .023 .168
Activity Factor
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
.403 .519 .158
.019 .211 .306
.006 .182 .268
.429 .497 .098
.364 .523 .193
.581 .623 .057
.760 .740 .020
.250 .114 .529
.805 .867 .072
.351 .393 .068
N>
N>
I —*
TABLE 33— Continued
Evaluative 1 Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
P08t
t
Gifted Student 1.231 1.045 .854 .766 .672 .183 .734 .740 .008
Counselor 2.097 2.156 1.194 .724 .662 .108 - .052 .101 .200
N - 77 DF - 75
NJ
S>
ro
TABLE 34
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE FEMALE GROUP
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept nps
Pre
Actual Self 1.333
Slow Learner - .083
Ideal Self 2.524
School Administration 1.071
Teachers 1.107
Discipline 1.482
Punishment .583
Counseling 2.137
College 1.548
Average Student .440
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
1.470 .208 - .077 .042
0 .129 - .464 - .565
2.173 .461 .405 .226
.804 .260 .524 .619
.875 .236 .089 .113
.631 .606 .554 .405
.411 .721 .452 .280
1.970 .243 .637 .649
1.083 .605 .655 .631
.327 .161 - .107 - .113
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
213 .774 .607 .218
134 .018 - .125 .154
354 - .179 .226 .468
107 .315 .363 .051
043 .482 .494 .017
236 .375 .339 .030
273 .661 .845 .158
029 - .286 .048 .275
059 .845 .768 .094
011 .321 .381 .089
fO
t s >
U)
TABLE 34— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS MFS
t
MFS MFS t MFS MFS
t -
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Gifted Student 1.321 1.208 .143 .899 .673 .367 1.000 .685 .355
Counselor 2.137 2.042 .109 .512 .601 .144 - .286 .196 .602
N ™ 42 DF - 40
r o
NS
TABLE 35
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR INSTITUTE A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.686
0.923
0.252
1.420
1.564
0.680
0.195
0.097
0.231
0.029
0.246
0.099
0.292
0.205
0.020
0.788
0.080
0.421
0.492
0.042
0.842
0.339
0.113
0.224
1.007
0.754
0.324
0.120
0.552
0.553
0.632
0.241
0.660
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.790a
1.431
0.311
0.952
0.830
0.390
1.330
0.768
0.274
1.355
0.990
0.265
0.427
0.696
0.576
1.551
0.800
0.336
1.772
0.971
0.412
0.785
0.355
0.025
1.344
1.453
0.743
1.853
1.115
0.245
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.268
0.474
0.854
1.447
0.964
0.709
0.816
0.621
0.678
1.535
0.722
1.010
0.842
0.600
0.045
1.072
0.660
0.813
2.272a
1.399
0.435
1.685
0.250
0.960
0.702
0.593
0.126
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.144
0.407
0.142
0.538
0.045
0.215
0.567
0.273
0.311
0.797
0.009
0.967
0.458
0.021
0.023
0.621
0.863
0.573
0.272
0.315
0.427
0.814
0.078
0.945
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.271
0.437
0.056
0.640
0.126
0.318
0.549
0.376
0.773
0.471
0.313
0.115
0.906
0.545
0.469
0.134
0.763
0.440
0.630
0.623
0.748
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.948
0.286
0.564
0.247
0.151
0.778
0.072
0.082
0.219
0.958
1.050
0.280
0.135
0.434
0.534
0.384
0.048
0.657
ro
ro
ui
TABLE 35— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.000 0.982 0.871 0.054 0.668 1.012
0.000 0.157 0.218 0.612 0.576 0.318
0.000 1.170 0.210 0.658 0.129 1.023
0.000 0.156 1.293 0.534 0.227
0.000 0.056 0.968 0.474 0.278
0.000 1.236 0.534 1.084 0.146
0.000 1.115 0.213 0.330
0.000 0.824 0.544 0.121
0.000 0.566 0.366 1.217
0.000 0.972 1.525
0.000 1.324 1.412
0.000 0.840 0.547
0.000 0.974
0.000 0.418
0.000 1.091
.05 level of significance N » 29
DF ■ 27
226
TABLE 36
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR INSTITUTE A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.257
1.039
0.474
1.209
1.086
0.531
0.704
0.236
0.179
0.506
0.418
0.334
0.519
0.265
0.354
1.156
0.414
0.270
0.849
0.324
0.607
0.066
0.826
0.090
0.893
0.539
0.317
0.119
0.559
0.136
1.033
0.551
0.500
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.015
1.642
0.013
0.503
1.014
0.282
1.199
0.563
0.231
0.793
1.303
0.086
0.204
1.221
0.555
1.643
1.223
0.208
1.871
1.737
0.532
0.587
0.682
0.283
1.343
1.657
0.648
1.902
1.751
0.025
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.293
0.399
0.352
1.485
0.938
0.270
1.238
0.635
0.100
1.830
0.395
0.613
0.534
0.544
0.198
0.874
0.547
0.637
1.716
1.248
0.334
0.892
0.326
0.632
0.239
0.377
0.035
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.519
0.552
0.087
0.165
0.031
0.216
0.541
0.115
0.419
1.081
0.021
0.496
0.873
0.137
0.304
0.097
0.681
0.095
0.953
0.220
0.270
1.560
0.117
0.296
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.223
0.560
0.115
1.136
0.654
0.512
1.009
0.789
0.436
0.641
0.897
0.334
0.765
0.019
0.014
0.554
0.777
0.387
1.194
1.061
0.246
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.009
0.210
0.712
0.876
0.065
0.317
0.680
0.250
0.415
0.292
0.784
0.130
0.673
0.333
0.341
1.045
0.282
0.083
227
TABLE 36--Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.000 1.395 1.461 0.719 1.109 1.482
0.000 0.126 0.016 0.986 0.098 0.055
0.000 0.761 0.147 0.484 0.116 0.634
0.000 0.438 1.333 0.473 0.285
0.000 0.194 0.785 0.256 0.308
0.000 0.659 0.471 0.668 0.330
0.000 1.249 0.048 0.700
0.000 1.095 0.117 0.060
0.000 0.327 0.039 0.553
0.000 0.979 1.505
0.000 1.060 1.008
0.000 0.399 0.277
0.000 0.758
0.000 0.079
0.000 0.691
N « = 29
DF - 27
228
TABLE 37
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR INSTITUTE A
[
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS MFS t MFS MFS t MFS MFS
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Actual Self 1.216 1.371 .226 .405 .233 .275 .457 .569 .198
Slow Learner - .138 .009 .324 - .431 - .560 .186 .172 .181 .009
Ideal Self 2.448 2.267 .205 1.009 .888 .217 - .190 .172 .431
School Administration 1.052 .586 .343 .500 .448 .048 .638 .440 .253
Teachers 1.190 1.000 .232 .233 - .086
.459 .534 .379 .184
Discipline 1.474 .784 .526 .534 .422 .176 .474 .276 .194
Punishment .371 - .190 .440 .336 .552 .304 .871 .784 .095
Counseling 1.698 1.836 .242 .440 .466 .050 - .155 - .009 .200
College 1.543 1.431 .170 .483 .560 .130 .655 .638 .020
Average Student .431 .500 .126 - .103 - .103 0 .198 .388 .398
TABLE 37--Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept HP5 ^ 5 MFS MFS MFS MFS
Pre Post Pre Post * Pre Post
Gifted Student 1.328 1.466 .169 .802 .621 .383 1.043 .672 .481
Counselor 1.871 2.026 .189 .560 .586 .051 - .086 .198 .401
N - 29 DF - 27
230
TABLE 38
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR INSTITUTE B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.566
1.201
0.515
1.124
0.790
0.692
0.026
0.119
0.053
0.254
0.503
0.023
0.466
0.292
0.092
0.409
0.143
0.243
1.052
0.233
0.854
0.273
0.145
0.377
1.125
0.867
0.057
0.313
0.260
0.400
0.693
0.110
0.817
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.658b
1.627
0.541
1.217
1.081
0.564
1.271
0.642
0.307
2.300a
1.544
0.642
0.768
1.309
0.307
2.821b
1.429
0.744
1.729
1.636
0.641
0.537
0.617
0.742
1.141
1.697
0.123
1.912
1.351
0.750
3. 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.845
0.361
0.579
1.307
1.002
0.697
0.528
0.437
0.410
1.127
0.399
0.759
0.181
0.464
0.503
0.848
0.513
1.049
2.292a
1.471
0.743
1.474
0.413
1.037
0.378
0.565
0.263
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.191
0.801
0.110
0,492
0.119
0.052
0.416
0.000
0.325
0.776
0.019
0.784
0.304
0.024
0.415
0.966
0.820
0.140
0.246
0.078
0.473
0.678
0.063
0.675
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.741
0.745
0.115
0.280
0.709
0.277
1.357
0.638
0.897
0.476
0.711
0.330
0.799
0.285
0.044
0.101
0.776
0.381
1.093
0.753
0.899
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.821
0.152
0.480
0.462
0.140
0.849
0.276
0.219
0.342
1.557
1.269
0.149
0.838
0.054
0.415
0.118
0.277
0.589
231
TABLE 38— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.000 1.131 0.599 0.373 0.130 0.948
0.000 0.031 0.035 1.010 0.106 0.072
0.000 1.057 0.018 0.261 0.057 0.962
0.000 0.743 2.238a 1.290 0.272
0.000 0.102 1.354 0.090 0.127
0.000 1.126 0.943 1.052 0.483
0.000 1.545 0.858 0.369
0.000 1.664 0.203 0.055
0.000 0.320 0.048 1.072
0.000 0.894 1.767
0.000 1.472 1.337
0.000 0.448 0.900
0.000 0.256
0.000 0.940
0.000 1.081
f.05 level of confidence N ■ 32
.01 level of confidence DF * 30
232
TABLE 39
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR INSTITUTE B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000 1.632 1.126
0.000 1.714 0.656
0.000 0.402 0.506
2 0.000 2.373
0.000 1.934
0.000 0.052
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
4
5
6
0.552 0.420 0.602
0.155 0.809 0.365
0.103 0.051 0.084
0.898 1.148 0.536
1.401 0.670 1.314
0.339 0.532 0.363
1.253 1.325 1.284
0.425 1.139 0.737
0.436 0.616 0.437
0.000 0.263 0.166
0.000 0.755 0.162
0.000 0.174 0.025
0.000 0.334
0.000 0.528
0.000 0.132
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.185
0.694
0.028
0.410
0.178
0.735
0.414
0.138
0.524
0.144
1.023
0.321
1.429
1.354
0.090
1.280
1.546
0.774
1.849
1.011
0.428
0.378
0.482
0.252
1.263
0.492
1.095
0.807
0.652
0.055
0.885
0.015
0.614
0.200
0.032
0.671
1.056
0.269
0.061
0.696
0.661
0.875
0.010
0.850
0.511
1.077
0.398
0.044
0.888
0.192
0.637
0.362
0.346
0.508
0,960
0.977
0.200
0.684
0.010
0.067
0.623
0.231
0.622
0.691
0.922
0.309
1.042
2.164a
0.482
2.220
1.996
0.052
1.857
1.348
0.310
1.604
0.361
0.591
0.273
0.623
0.159
0.367
0.826
0.128
0.008
0.137
0.185
1.273
0.009
0.461
0.609
0.000
0.357
0.162
1.056
0.041
1.247
0.739
0.704
0.105
0.634
0.118
0.179
0.334
0.119
1.106
0.233
0.487
TABLE 39— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.421
0.466
0.636
1.119
0.608
0.401
0.643
0.309
0.139
0.792
0.804
0.090
1.683
0.600
0.500
8 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.684
0.023
1.453
1.068
0.763
0.497
0.819
0.137
0.796
0.210
0.014
0.090
9 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.682
0.952
0.661
0.182
0.134
0.390
1.125
0.042
1.143
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.434
1.277
0.313
1.838
0.962
0.421
11 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.321
0.211
0.752
a.05 level of significance N - 32
DF « 30
234
TABLE 40
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR INSTITUTE B
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
Actual Self 1.672 1.648 .039 .664 .789 .243 .437 .625 .247
Slow Learner .156 .141 .018 - .531 - .570 .044
i
•
00
.156 .299
Ideal Self 2.602 2.383 .387 1.195 1.086 .193 - .148 .211 .504
School Administration 1.641 1.078 .505 .797 .656 .211 .383 .531 .157
Teachers 1.461 1.250 .254 .180 ..039 .212 .461 .664 .265
Discipline 2.187 .836 1.302 .906 .508 .564 .312 .555 .241
Punishment 1.148 - .055 .905 .797 .227 .935 .773 .594 .154
Counseling 2.508 2.039 .744 .820 .672 .273 - .531 .070 .610
College 1.953 1.258 .770 .773 .687 .177 .797 1.039 .253
NJ
CO
Ul
TABLE 40— Continued
Concept
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
Average Student .602 .719 .144 - .047 .039 .160 .492 .437 .083
Gifted Student 1.352 1.086 .281 .875 .781 .184 .844 .703 .134
Counselor 2.297 2.203 .121 .742 .664 .146 - .289 .109 .483
N - 32 DF - 30
r s >
w
ON
TABLE 41
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR INSTITUTE C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000 1.577 1.071
0.000 1.412 0.841
0.000 0.710 0.744
2 0.000 2.478'
0.000 1.966
0.000 0.021
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
4
5
6
0.396 0.227 0.158
0.038 0.420 0.027
0.352 0.408 0.125
0.542 1.071 1.036
1.081 1.054 1.299
0.406 0.448 1.159
1.185 1.243 1.259
0.623 1.096 0.610
0.361 0.416 0.841
0.000 0.339 0.317
0.000 0.479 0.018
0.000 0.052 0.574
0.000 0.072
0.000 0.411
0.000 0.587
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.588
0.239
0.000
0.874
0.000
0.878
0.031
0.133
0.410
0.458
1.492
0.901
2.867b
1.583
0.266
1.732
1.331
1.240
1.530
0.922
0.610
0.146
0.550
0.219
1.156
0.748
1.050
0.154
0.147
0.369
1.079
0.049
0.614
0.449
0.689
0.789
0.449
0.275
0.387
1.144
0.526
0.810
0.321
0.442
0.930
0.600
0.363
0.199
1.084
0.038
1.049
0.209
0.122
0.354
0.885
0.744
0.403
0.188
0.050
0.042
0.931
0.096
0.977
0.714
0.826
0.489
1.239
1.397
0.921
2.8351
1.468
0.242
1.682
1.234
0.481
1.321
0.636
0.856
0.115
0.773
0.200
0.154
0.112
0.053
0.297
0.043
0.424
1.061
0.017
0.530
0.589
0.432
0.013
0.060
0.587
0.545
1.143
0.499
0.756
0.537
0.655
0.790
0.000
0.096
0.104
1.144
0.068
1.121
237
TABLE 41--Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.000 1.685 0.833 0.016 0.585 1.852
0.000 0.299 0.098 0.620 0.298 0.149
0.000 0.861 0.434 0.452 0.034 0.768
0.000 1.023 2.027 1.134 0.068
0.000 0.176 1.010 0.067 0.124
0.000 1.422 0.683 1.069 0.068
0.000 0.934 0.281 1.282
0.000 0.781 0.320 0.064
0.000 1.250 0.458 1.427
0.000 0.557 1.932
0.000 0.918 0.823
0.000 0.580 0.646
0.000 1.194
0.000 0.206
0.000 1.301
a.05 level of confidence N « 29
k.01 level of confidence DF = 27
238
TABLE 42
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR INSTITUTE C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.679
1.261
0.527
1.284
0.728
0.527
0.765
0.248
0.048
0.633
0.625
0.068
0.732
0.099
0.120
1.252
0.072
0.234
0.899
0.010
0.591
0.388
0.078
0.432
1.322
0.833
0.222
0.385
0.163
0.365
0.882
0.042
0.603
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.142a
1.555
0.162
0.139
0.621
0.751
0.710
0.471
0.763
0.352
0.977
0.734
0.059
1.125
0.937
1.963
1.199
0.000
1.053
1.363
1.382
0.324
0.816
0.553
1.176
1.402
1.231
1.831
1.366
0.112
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.391
0.520
0.406
1.380
0.841
0.592
1.557
0.537
0.590
1.920
0.521
0.720
0.303
0.392
0.151
1.441
0.423
0.848
2.043a
1.151
0.346
1.239
0.413
0.871
0.106
0.509
0.070
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.455
0.269
0.156
0.166
0.206
0.179
0.208
0.260
0.340
1.415
0.309
0.771
0.601
0.345
0.764
0.052
0.186
0.234
0.596
0.371
0.549
1.268
0.298
0.736
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.328
0.531
0.054
0.735
0.586
0.216
1.291
0.646
0.759
0.193
0.817
0.545
0.585
0.161
0.497
0.230
0.730
0.376
1.068
0.667
0.864
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.572
0.068
0.266
1.386
0.109
0.715
0.499
0.227
0.393
0.174
0.638
0.412
0.415
0.275
0.370
1.299
0.163
0.779 K
to
TABLE 42— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.821
0.076
0.812
0.905
0.195
0.197
0.315
0.725
0.538
0.962
0.282
0.145
1.754
0.134
0.906
8 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.668
0.062
1.123
2.426a 1.260
0.729 0.141
0.483 1.064
0.179
0.031
0.138
9 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.941
1.053
0.975
0.059
0.120
0.121
1.252
0.049
1.331
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.828
1.010
0.787
1.839
0.910
0.485
11 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.055
0.152
1.151
a.05 level of confidence N - 29
DF - 27
240
TABLE 43
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR INSTITUTE C
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
Actual Self 1.267 1.259 .014 .647 .586 .108 .672 .552 .122
Slow Learner .112 .086 .047 - .440 - .397 .061 - .026 - .086 .098
Ideal Self 2.190 2.129 .089 1.181 1.026 .274 - .043 .060 .132
School Administration .741 .259 .377 .603 .284 .353 .336 ,500 .202
Teachers 1.034 .784 .290 .241 .000 .361 .302 .621 .406
Discipline 1.095 .483 .649 .621 .500 .161 .793 .664 .222
Punishment .543 .026 .586 .466 .534 .153 .672 .810 .175
Counseling
2.069 1.888 .279 .647 .595 .101 - .276 - .086 .266
College 1.293 .948 .654 .534 .638 .229 1.052 .974 .122
Average Student .560 .310 .408 .026 .103 .215 .293 .345 .072£
TABLE 43— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS MFS t MFS MFS t MFS MFS
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Gifted Student 1.095 .991 .158 .690 .698 .014 .707 .905 .259
Counselor 2.103 2.043 .074 .569 .612 .070 - .224 .000 .297
N - 29 DF - 27
N3
ro
TABLE 44
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR INSTITUTE D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.362b
1.310
0.539
1.712
1.061
0.562
0.531
0.120
0.364
0.079
0.321
0.293
0.261
0.091
0.044
1.072
0.097
0.074
1.037
0.654
0.571
0.131
0.317
0.240
1.455
1.058
0.177
0.380
0.544
0.221
1.026
0.544
0.405
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
4.626b
1.862
0.137
0.724
1.157
0.227
1.535
0.762
0.347
1.030
1.243
0.461
0.427
1.307
0.502
2.712a
2.009a
0.062
1.875
1.983
0.698
0.729
0.590
0.490
1.617
1.815
0.824
2.789
1.780
0.096
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.166
0.434
0.098
1.053
0.822
0.263
0.925
0.545
0.413
1.770
0.505
0.476
0.982
0.157
0.160
1.477
0.277
0.742
2.756a
1.626
0.354
1.624
0.046
0.744
0.579
0.359
0.030
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.555
0.456
0.124
0.416
0.046
0.359
0.429
0.049
0.372
0.890
0.317
0.220
0.436
0.183
0.632
0.360
0.834
0.227
0.322
0.421
0.788
0.897
0.186
0.111
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.187
0.454
0.141
1.173
0.420
0.461
0.615
0.743
0.315
0.038
0.083
0.122
1.010
0.478
0.272
0.209
0.877
0.355
0.726
0.627
0.010
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.929
0.370
0.177
0.591
0.319
0.250
0.140
0.981
0.360
0.618
0.483
0.552
0.007
0.261
0.109
0.644
0.074
0.453
243
TABLE 44--Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.368
0.478
0.437
0.803
0.289
0.127
0.007
0.958
0.209
0.669
0.530
0.098
1.361
0.271
0.370
8 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.819
0.192
0.660
1.978
1.671
0.508
1.124
0.132
0.669
0.355
0.215
0.170
9 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.190
1.396
0.485
0.238
0.320
0.044
0.846
0.028
0.713
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.094
1.379
0.416
2.141a
1.527
0.372
11 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.202
0.260
0.747
£
^.05 level of significance
.01 level of significance
N - 29
DF - 27
244
TABLE 45
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR INSTITUTE D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.068a
1.696
0.386
0.723
0.760
0.116
1.209
0.066
0.143
0.839
0.459
0.118
1.220
0.049
0.189
1.739
0.244
0.529
0.243
0.250
0.109
0.741
0.061
0.200
2.165
0.950
0.175
0.936
0.000
0.190
1.023
0.144
0.290
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.485s
1.696
0.325
0.293
1.060
0.309
0.769
0.678
0.450
0.529
1.229
0.720
0.366
0.879
0.874
1.465
1.310
0.292
0.885
1.412
0.524
0.100
0.466
0.330
1.084
1.335
0.643
2.393
1.557
0.080
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.534
0.358
0.048
1.220
0.674
0.014
1.409
0.451
0.332
2.003
0.523
0.636
0.261
0.109
0.010
1.144
0.307
0.287
2.441s
1.124
0.070
1.439
0.372
0.359
0.038
0.248
0.204
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.501
0.504
0.070
0.161
0.032
0.480
0.551
0.216
0.671
1.056
0.338
0.034
0.627
0.152
0.505
0.246
0.909
0.012
0.472
0.077
0.492
1.871
0.256
0.209
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.365
0.490
0.363
0.949
0.241
0.710
0.877
0.715
0.023
0.000
0.565
0.305
0.802
0.362
0.087
0.088
0.525
0.388
1.550
0.774
0.253
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.744
0.233
0.418
1.111
0.424
0.407
0.358
0.105
0.033
0.400
0.952
0.484
0.290
0.057
0.035
1.766
0.247
0.619
245
TABLE--Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.940
0.479
0.787
0.951
0.363
0.305
0.375
0.757
0.781
1.250
0.232
0.475
2.132a
0.399
0.720
8 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.631
0.203
0.267
1.503
1.063
0.051
0.916
0.303
0.310
0.244
0.193
0.246
9 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.961
1.326
0.357
0.146
0.066
0.063
1.243
0.091
0.517
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.012
0.925
0.426
2.352a
1.169
0.154
11 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.429
0.162
0.590
a.05 level of significance N - 29
DF = 27
246
TABLE 46
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR INSTITUTE D
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept mfs
Pre
Actual Self 1.526
Slow Learner - .112
Ideal Self 2.543
School Administration .862
Teachers 1.466
Discipline 1.241
Punishment .414
Counseling 1.974
College 1.431
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
1.647 .222 .448 .569
.129 .410 - .474 - .362
2.147 .673 .922 .888
.440 .376 .552
.509
.983 .485 .164 .147
.595 .500 .517 .534
.241 .494 .517 .362
1.888 .093 .819 .793
.983 .510 .698 .612
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
246 .517 .466 .084
178 .000 .121 .219
056 .112 .388 .391
054 .190 .353 .314
026 .293 .397 .156
023 .474 .621 .163
207 .603 .957 .303
045 - .069 .379 .424
157 .750 .647 .124
N>
■o
' s j
Evaluative Factor
TABLE 46— Continued
Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS MFS
t
MFS MFS MFS MFS
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Average Student .405 .190 .332 - .138 ■ - .086 .104 .371 .345 .042
Gifted Student 1.250 .879 .555 . 8 8 8 .569 .577 .716 .603 .190
Counselor 2.138 2.172 .048 .716 .681 .050 .086 .198 .135
N - 29 DF - 27
N>
4>
CO
TABLE 47
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE HIGH RANKED GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.134
0.988
0.402
1.425
1.781
0.485
0.314
0 . 1 0 2
0.146
0.142
0.459
0 . 0 2 0
0.255
0.151
0.092
0.582
0.016
0.395
0.731
0.229
0.451
0.492
0.056
0.738
1.218
0.733
0.183
0.107
0.405
0.474
0.830
0.099
0.359
2 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
2.482a
1.533
0.079
0.583
0 . 6 6 8
0.274
0.874
0.495
0.513
1.280
1.332
0.420
0.350
0.952
0.785
1.557
1.248
0.042
1.521
1 . 2 1 0
0.924
0.300
0.624
0.338
1.194
1.473
0.781
1.772
1.179
0.066
3 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.453
0.689
0.323
1.736
1 . 1 2 1
0.535
1 . 0 0 0
0.702
0.595
1.775
0.627
0.827
0.618
0.517
0.032
1.214
0.663
0.977
3.078b
1.510
0.338
1.495
0.377
0.823
0.601
0.827
0.160
4 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.458
0.411
0.239
0.555
0 . 2 1 1
0 . 2 1 1
0.298
0.142
0.680
1.017
0.279
0.248
0.647
0.143
0.652
0.531
0.447
0.031
0.397
0.484
0.640
1 . 1 1 1
0.206
0.182
5 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.368
0.571
0 . 1 0 1
0.544
0.453
0.526
0.881
0.611
0.533
0.598
0.509
0.727
0.884
0.150
0.319
0.223
0.816
0.512
1.014
0.667
0.539
6 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.898
0.132
0.447
0.555
0.130
0.678
0.134
0.145
0.439
1.188
1.240
0.313
0.149
0.430
0.337
0.482
0.070
0.550
249
TABLE 47— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 O ' 1
"J 1
8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
7 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.296
0.239
0.742
0.929
0.040
0.092
0:195
0.730
0.847
0.612
0.446
0.038
1.275
0.071
0.768
8 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.371
0 . 2 1 1
1.055
1.885
1.073
0.326
0.813
0.226
0.805
0 . 0 2 1
0.183
0 . 2 1 1
9 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.662
1.092
0.976
0.354
0.458
0.075
0.396
0.032
1.097
10 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.791
1.384
0.791
0.270
1.065
0.270
1 1 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.759
0.501
0.759
®.05 level of significance
. 0 1 level of significance
N - 32
DF - 30
250
TABLE 48
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE HIGH RANKED GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
1 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.341
1.124
0.436
1.082
0.990
0.584
0.880
0.075
0.109
0.819
0.501
0.113
0.610
0.078
0.117
1.052
0.105
0 . 2 1 2
0.641
0.502
0.340
0.217
0.019
0.207
1.421
0.705
0.329
0.170
0.146
0.147
0.656
0.263
0.306
2 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
2.113a
1.655
0.094
0.353
0.817
0.422
0.676
0.536
0.410
0.633
1.207
0.611
0.205
1.032
0.593
1.465
1.485
0.180
1.116
1 . 2 2 2
0.650
0.257
0.773
0 . 2 1 1
1.183
1.370
0.379
1.785
1.466
0.184
3 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.456
0.499
0.393
1.692
0.989
0.449
1.217
0.629
0.667
1.568
0.629
0.709
0.398
0.113
0 . 1 1 2
1.186
0.535
0.660
2.196a
1.436
0.159
1.153
0.402
0.376
0.295
0.368
0.117
4 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.242
0.410
0 . 0 2 0
0.177
0.016
0.271
0.468
0 . 0 1 2
0.352
1.170
0.469
0.279
0.659
0.094
0.394
0.206
0.529
0.286
0.750
0.195
0.066
1.344
0.282
0.248
5 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.039
0.538
0.254
0.724
0.465
0.308
1.219
0.903
0.285
0.529
0.601
0.369
0.590
0 . 0 1 1
0.308
0.556
0.656
0.082
1.320
0.689
0.271
6 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.793
0.038
0.206
0.981
0.718
0.527
0.532
0.134
0.107
0.419
0.667
0.556
0.463
0.255
0.297
1 . 1 1 0
0.410
0.446
251
TABLE 48— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 . 0 0 0 1.322 0.965 0.431 0.918 1.507
0 . 0 0 0 0.596 0.125 0.737 0.283 0.407
0 . 0 0 0 0.591 0.043 0.571 0.391 0.493
0 . 0 0 0 0.738 1.522 0.887 0.068
0 . 0 0 0 0.659 1.154 0.401 0.453
0 . 0 0 0 0.549 0.028 0.259 0 . 0 1 2
0 . 0 0 0 1.049 0.081 0.808
0 . 0 0 0 0.766 0.166 0.271
0 . 0 0 0 0.521 0.406 0.598
0 . 0 0 0 1.119 1.671
0 . 0 0 0 0.963 1.039
0 . 0 0 0 0 . 2 0 0 0.017
0 . 0 0 0 1.099
0 . 0 0 0 0.117
0 . 0 0 0 0.248
a.05 level of significance N - 32
DF - 30
252
TABLE 49
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE LOW RANKED GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
1 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
2.044a
1.018
0.444
1.082
0.942
0.884
0.332
0.213
0.154
0.168
0.454
0.383
0.187
0.385
0.157
0.647
0.163
0 . 0 0 0
0.766
0.088
1.172
0.017
0.194
0.354
1.050
0.841
0.289
0.397
0.381
0 . 2 1 2
1.030
0.239
0.930
2 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
2.541a 0.854
1.502 0.954
0.337 0.274
1.529
0.495
0 . 1 2 0
1.343
1.024
0.282
0.754
0.938
0.385
2.495a
0.922
0.548
1.557
1.239
0.578
0.865
0.208
0 . 2 1 2
1 . 1 2 0
1.307
0.595
2.635a
1.230
0.414
3 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.014
0.330
0.655
1.173
1.067
0.469
0.568
0.391
0.694
1.251
0.528
0.747
0.282
0.562
0.215
1.018
0.599
1 . 1 0 2
1.823
1.411
0.706
1.441
0.400
0.875
0.204
0.594
0.082
4 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.185
0.772
0.224
0.735
0.058
0.008
0.263
0.145
0.134
0 . 8 6 6
0.205
0.972
0.322
0.146
0.531
0.418
1.130
0 . 1 2 2
0.040
0.052
0.410
1.014
0 . 1 1 0
0.746
5 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.306
0.677
0.145
0.434
0.587
0.259
0.845
0.602
0.692
0.140
0.766
0.577
0.815
0.472
0.098
0.185
0.916
0.478
0.947
0.873
0.619
6 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.751
0.235
0.155
0.425
0.348
1 . 0 1 2
0.199
0.241
0.435
1 . 0 2 1
1.027
0.096
0.583
0 . 0 1 0
0.310
0.513
0.194
0.750
TABLE 49--Continued
7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
0 . 0 0 0 1.171 0.634 0.159 0.317 1 . 2 1 2
0 . 0 0 0 0.092 0 . 0 0 0 0.989 0.208 0.031
0 . 0 0 0 0.994 0.256 0 . 2 1 0 0.156 0.803
0 . 0 0 0 0.770 1.769 1.219 0.180
0 . 0 0 0 0.013 1.149 0.300 0.154
0 . 0 0 0 1.262 0.843 1.086 0.199
0 . 0 0 0 0.951 0.413 0.939
0 . 0 0 0 1.447 0.337 0.051
0 . 0 0 0 0.548 0.059 1.126
0 . 0 0 0 0.624 2.017®
0 . 0 0 0 1.306 1.692
0 . 0 0 0 0.437 0.713
0 . 0 0 0 1.588
0 . 0 0 0 0.233
0 . 0 0 0 0.968
8
10
11
l . 05 level of significance N ® 32
DF - 30
254
TABLE 50
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS
OF EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE LOW RANKED GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
1 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.792
1 . 8 6 6
0.591
1.189
0.889
0.586
0.861
0.067
0.392
0.534
0.746
0.193
0.761
0.239
0.099
1.591
0.116
0.288
0.812
0.099
0.611
0.437
0.475
0.356
0.131
0.697
0.361
0.499
0.361
0.296
0.728
0.153
0.645
2 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
2,114a
1.934
0.117
0.325
1 . 1 2 2
0.312
0.911
0.336
0.515
0.663
1.611
0.444
0.063
1.260
0.781
2.106s
1.392
0.017
1.223
1.821
0.819
0.625
0.930
0.449
1.295
1.641
0.923
1.759
1.623
0 . 1 1 0
3 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.479
0.444
0.231
1.437
0.952
0.455
1.608
0.453
0.436
2.068a
0.434
0.872
0.392
0.448
0.117
1.305
0.365
0.827
1.939
1 . 1 1 1
0.439
1.427
0.305
0.875
0.191
0.459
0 . 0 0 0
4 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.619
0.682
0.163
0.267
0.229
0.245
0.292
0.158
0.548
1.535
0.153
0.393
0.690
0.325
0.792
0.094
0.486
0.082
0.582
0.333
0.580
1.461
0.175
0.260
5 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.275
0.932
0.065
1.054
0.853
0.395
1.304
1.177
0.474
0.205
1.173
0.490
0.601
0.305
0.130
0.148
0.964
0.438
1.073
1.036
0.439
6 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.823
0 . 1 0 1
0.353
1.452
0.128
0.504
0.420
0.156
0.357
0.274
1.308
0.184
0.339
0.109
0.326
1.227
0.082
0.446
255
TABLE 50— Continued
8
10
11
7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
0 . 0 0 0 1.992 1.235 0.561 0.939 1.674
0 . 0 0 0 0.030 0.246 0.782 0 . 2 0 0 0 . 0 1 0
0 . 0 0 0 0.853 0.052 0.630 0.027 0 . 8 8 6
0 . 0 0 0 1.144 2 . 0 0 2 1.098 0 . 1 1 0
0 . 0 0 0 0.311 0.811 0.191 0.061
0 . 0 0 0 0.944 0.512 0.887 0.167
0 . 0 0 0 0.887 0 . 0 2 0 1.007
0 . 0 0 0 1.164 0 . 0 1 2 0.231
0 . 0 0 0 0.640 0.040 1.106
0 . 0 0 0 0.654 1.611
0 . 0 0 0 0.934 0.777
0 . 0 0 0 0.622 0.394
0 . 0 0 0 0.965
0 . 0 0 0 0.174
0 . 0 0 0 0.972
L .05 level of significance N ■ 32
DF - 30
256
TABLE 51
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRETEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
OF HIGH AND LOW RANKED GROUPS
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept , ^ 5
High
Actual Self 1.164
Slow Learner .055
Ideal Self 2.492
School Administration .797
Teachers 1.039
Discipline 1.437
Punishment .484
Counseling 1.922
College 1.562
MFS
Low
t
MFS
High
MFS
Low
1.477 -1.825 .562 .453
■ .016 .413 - .398 - .375
2.297 1.273 1.219 1.047
1.094 -1.005 .445 .695
1.328 -1.375 .125 .031
1.672 - .853 .672 .750
.766 -1.026 .578 .578
2.094 - .852 .758 .516
1.461 .536 .609 .578
t
MFS
High
MFS
Low
t
.622 .445 .586 - .822
- .139 .047 .117 - .070
.870 - .031 - .242 1.048
-1.164 .312 .453 - .890
.608 .461 .258 1.337
- .461 .547 .445 .509
. 0 0 0 .883 .586 1.455
1.568 . 0 0 0 - .437 2.139a
.289 .977 .859 .621
N5
Ui
TABLE 51— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS MFS t MFS MFS MFS MFS
High Low High Low High Low
Average Student .258 .594 -2.128® .016 - . 2 1 1 2.608® .289 .336 - .375
Gifted Student 1.266 1.141 .645 .906 .742 1.291 .922 .797 .679
Counselor 1.937 2.164 -1.261 .633 .602 .288 .109 - .312 2.133a
a. 05 level of significance N High Ranked Group *
N Low Ranked Group -
Degrees of Freedom ■
32
32
62
hO
m
00
TABLE 52
VALUES OF t BETWEEN POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
Concept
Actual Self
Slow Learner
Ideal Self
School Administration
Teachers
Discipline
Punishment
Counseling
College
OF HIGH AND LOW
Evaluative Factor
MFS
High
MFS
Low
t
1.289 1.469 1.043
.055 - 0.23 .473
2.047 2.305 1.560
.414 .406 .031
.656 .945 1.471
.617 .727 .535
.187 .031 .882
1.766 2.031 1.298
1.094 1.125 .184
RANKED GROUPS
Potency Factor
MFS MFS
High Low
523 .469 .365
437 - .602 1 . 2 2 0
961 .977 .091
445 .406 .186
031 - .266 1.515
461 .625 1.291
437 .562 .125
883 .539 2.501'
539 .711 1.476
Activity Factor
MFS MFS
High Low
664 .586 .450
164 - .016 1.027
242 .078 1.049
555 .297 1.744
570 .437 .905
758 .500 1.521
891 .820 .381
328 - .031 1.999'
844 .875 .171
N>
Ln
VO
TABLE 52— Continued
Concept
Evaluative Factor
MFS MFS t
High Low
Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS
Higi
MFS
Low
MFS
High
MFS
Low
Average Student .219 .500 1.781 .039 .008 .289 .352 .352 . 0 0 0
Gifted Student 1.164 1.109 .298 .641 .703 .459 .508 .844 2.13
Counselor 1.805 2.117 1.400 .703 .570 1.008 .336 .078 1.471
a. 05 level of significance N High Ranked Group * 32
N Low Ranked Group - 32
Degrees of Freedom - 62
TABLE 53
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE HIGH RANKED GROUP
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
Actual Self 1.164 1.289 .175
Slow Learner .055 .055 . 0 0 0
Ideal Self 2.492 2.047 .728
School Administration .797 .414 .365
Teachers 1.039 .656 .502
Discipline 1.437 .617 .740
Punishment .484 - .187 .533
Counseling 1.922 1.766 .245
College 1.562 1.094 .824
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
.562 .523 .075 .445 .664 .251
.398 - .437 .063 .047 .164 .173
1.219 .961 .488 - .031 .242 .357
.445 .445 . 0 0 0 .312 .555 .276
.125 .031 .147 .461 .570 .178
.672 .461 .339 .547 .758 .234
.578 .437 .203 .883 .891 . 0 1 1
.758 .883 .272 . 0 0 0 .328 .389
.609 .539 .128 .977 .844 .180
ro
o\
TABLE 53— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
Average Student .258 .219 .081 .016 .039 .062 .289 .352 .095
Gifted Student 1.266 1.164 .129 .906 .641 .501 .922 .508 .426
Counselor 1.937 1.805 .174 .633 .703 . 1 2 1 .109 .335 .325
N - 32
DF = 30
t o
os
t o
TABLE 54
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE LOW RANKED GROUP
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Pre
Actual Self 1.477
Slow Learner - .016
Ideal Self 2.297
School Administration 1.094
Teachers 1.328
Discipline 1.672
Punishment .766
Counseling 2.094
College 1.461
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
1.469 .017 .453 .469
.023 . 0 1 2 - .375 - .602
2.305 .009 1.047 .977
.406 .429 .695 .406
.945 .373 .031 - .266
.727 .744 .750 .625
.031 .611 .578 .562
2.031 .089 .516 .539
1.125 .355 .578 .711
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
028 .586 .586 .275
266 .117 - .016 .156
127 - .242 .078 .355
239 .453 .297 .197
350 .258 .437 .218
149 .445 .500 .058
0 2 1 .586 .820 . 2 0 0
044 - .437 - .031 .419
365 .859 .875 .016
to
o>
TABLE 54— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
Pre Post
t
Pre Post
t
Pre Post
t
Average Student .594 .500 .153 - . 2 1 1 .008 .465 .336 .352 .025
Gifted Student 1.141 1.109 .033 .742 .703 .065 .797 .844 .063
Counselor 2.164 2.117 .063 .602 .570 .055 - .312 .078 .377
N = 32
DF - 30
ho
O'
■O
TABLE 55
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS OF
EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE HIGH RANKED MALE GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
1 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.441
2.119a
0.433
1.305
1.648
0.244
0.306
0.532
0.031
0.035
0.864
0.158
0.030
0.472
0.379
0.640
0.588
0.550
0.859
0.465
0.447
0.498
0.616
0.579
1.169
1.753
0.214
0.017
0.319
0.263
0.906
0.496
0.268
2 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
2.733®
2.637®
0.310
1.076
1.467
0.466
1.336
1.176
0.708
1.554
1.456
0.757
0.590
1.159
0.899
1.949
1.451
0.076
1.788
1.469
0.881
0.542
0.988
0.362
1.448
1.675
0.795
2.258;
1.711
0.279
3 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.456
1.246
0.244
1.635
1 . 6 6 6
0.465
1.194
1.465
0.699
1.719
1.228
0.838
0.563
1.445
0.257
1.189
1.654
0.698
2.816®
2.954
0.050
1.338
1.941
0.548
0.576
1.972
0 . 0 0 0
4 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.461
0.358
0.290
0.344
0.167
0.553
0.451
0.019
0.798
0.934
0.244
0.553
0.539
0.037
0.559
1.009
0.805
0.284
0.229
0.366
0.429
0.910
0.263
0.297
5 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.054
0.416
0.376
0.699
0.261
0.598
0.646
0.516
1.054
0.386
0.351
0.519
1.320
0.499
0.598
0 . 0 1 2
0.629
0.232
0.732
0.523
0.869
6 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.760
0 . 2 2 1
0.437
0.861
0.096
1.248
0.258
0.275
0.033
1.345
1.260
1.056
0.042
0.244
0.260
0.963
0.144
0.862
265
TABLE 55--Continued
7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
0 . 0 0 0 1.529 0.985 0.353 0 . 6 0 6 1.469
0 . 0 0 0 0.346 0.056 0.782 0.435 0.290
0 . 0 0 0 1.229 0.026 1.240 0.531 0.978
0 . 0 0 0 0.376 1.995 0.722 0.194
0 . 0 0 0 0.267 1 . 2 2 0 0.140 0.032
0 . 0 0 0 1.215 0.353 0.975 0.483
0 . 0 0 0 1.694 0.457 0.585
0 . 0 0 0 1.075 0.453 0.372
0 . 0 0 0 0.989 0.312 1.038
0 . 0 0 0 1.367 2.159a
0 . 0 0 0 1.502 1.610
0 . 0 0 0 1.051 0.053
0 . 0 0 0 0.925
0 . 0 0 0 0.198
0 . 0 0 0 0.743
8
10
11
05 level of confidence N = 19
01 level of confidence DF ■ 17
266
TABLE 56
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS OF
EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE HIGH RANKED MALE GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
1 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.797
1.561
0.384
1.055
1.075
0.527
0.918
0.444
0.113
0.628
0.753
0.366
0.914
0.600
0.119
1.158
0.622
0.186
0.570
0.193
0.420
0.316
0.523
0.075
1.357
1.378
0.425
0.346
0.321
0.156
0.495
0.167
0.522
2 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
3.093b
2.627a
0.090
0.409
1 . 0 1 1
0.501
0.983
0.563
0.261
0.608
1.086
0.630
0.072
1.223
0.617
1 . 8 6 6
1.630
0.092
1.204
1.107
0.513
0.578
0.814
0.187
1.251
1.320
0.357
1.743
1.409
0.081
3 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 , 0 0 0
1.574
1.574
0.420
1.591
1.591
0.292
1.579
1.579
0.717
1.731
1.731
0.728
0.428
0.428
0 . 0 2 2
1.618
1.618
0.484
2.431
2.431
0.095
1.359
1.359
0.356
0.500
0.500
0.224
4 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.429
0.444
0.174
0.132
0.214
0.332
0.295
0.115
0.410
1.198
0.740
0.447
0.678
0.085
0.239
0.050
0.660
0.440
0.711
0 . 1 1 2
0.086
1.265
0.292
0.565
5 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.369
0.355
0.507
0.745
0.409
0.454
1.152
1.037
0.232
0.351
0.474
0.389
0.617
0.051
0.192
0.268
0.521
0.068
1.087
0.598
0.755
6 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.568
0 . 2 1 2
0.172
1.325
1.052
0.710
0.625
0 . 1 2 1
0.051
0 . 2 1 0
0.492
0 . 6 6 6
0.536
0.319
0.363
1.215
0.511
0.755
267
TABLE 56— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
7 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.587
1.145
0.833
0.916
0 . 0 0 0
0.158
0.233
0.740
0.596
0.899
0.230
0.461
1.580
0.507
0.826
8 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.875
0.963
0.485
1.532
1.448
0.072
1.125
0.644
0.355
0.187
0.748
0.264
9 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.856
0.723
0.473
0 . 0 0 0
0.281
0.296
0.791
0.391
0.722
1 0 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.997
0.928
0.275
1.510
1 . 0 0 2
0.290
1 1 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.054
0.189
0.665
£.05 level of significance
. 0 1 level of significance
N = 19
DF = 17
268
TABLE 57
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS OF
EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE LOW RANKED MALE GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
1 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
2.318a
1.978
0.315
1.147
0.928
0.588
0.321
0.046
0.056
0.055
0.990
0.228
0.275
0.235
0 . 1 0 0
0.516
0.030
0.434
0.904
0.286
0.969
0 . 0 1 2
0.320
0.578
1.183
1.517
0.109
0.350
0.018
0.256
1.025
0.203
0.677
2 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
2.396a
2.266a
0.192
0.751
1.066
0.284
1.329
0.609
0.093
1.203
1.286
0.346
0.638
1.156
0.607
2.262a 1.258
1.298 1.417
0.490 0.592
0.858
0.267
0.229
1.037
1.318
0.529
2.534a
1.633
0.307
3 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.191
0.877
0.467
1.127
1.726
0.275
0.536
0.566
0.554
1 . 1 2 2
0.773
0.717
0.171
0.946
0.328
1.093
1.228
0.862
2.057a
2.054a
0.452
1.549
1.026
0.734
0.192
1.134
0.165
4 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.285
0 . 8 6 6
0.255
0.843
0.261
0.025
0.163
0.027
0.359
1.019
0.129
1.084
0.299
0.145
0.460
0.353
1.058
0.132
0.047
0.081
0.218
1.065
0.069
0.605
5 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.355
0.815
0 . 2 1 2
0.400
0.705
0.520
0.837
0 . 6 8 8
0.656
0.034
0.769
0.529
0.940
0.417
0.127
0.275
0.916
0.341
0.965
0.993
0.487
6 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.650
0.269
0.290
0.425
0.524
0.962
0.281
0.466
0.420
0.959
1.083
0.143
0.632
0.273
0.178
0.422
0.344 n >
0.643 £
TABLE 57--Continued
8
10
7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
0 . 0 0 0 1.065 0.488 0.191 0.288 1.050
0 . 0 0 0 0.182 0 . 2 0 1 0.999 0.046 0,095
0 . 0 0 0 1.147 0.069 0.378 0.115 0.852
0 . 0 0 0 0.848 1.963 1.239 0.033
0 . 0 0 0 1.140 0.257 0.107 0.019
0 . 0 0 0 1.367 0.843 1.237 0.250
0 . 0 0 0 0.812 0.403 1.005
0 . 0 0 0 1.268 0.417 0.115
0 . 0 0 0 0.448 0 . 2 0 2 0.973
0 . 0 0 0 0.582 2.166a
0 . 0 0 0 1.136 1.710
0 . 0 0 0 0.323 0.597
0 . 0 0 0 1.477
0 . 0 0 0 0 . 2 0 0
0 . 0 0 0 0.838
.05 level of significance N - 22
DF = 20
TABLE 58
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS OF
EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE LOW RANKED MALE GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
1 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.772
2.416a
0.506
1.162
1.218
0.571
0.751
0.426
0.204
0.386
1.214
0 . 0 0 0
0.642
0.248
0.173
1.423
0.068
0.218
0.969
0.071
0.485
0.312
0.262
0.535
1.067
0.826
0.276
0.473
0.261
0.420
1.091
0.023
0.502
2 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.812
2.821a
0.047
0.178
0.998
0.304
0.860
0.184
0.501
0.589
1.864
0.619
0.070
1.311
0.718
1.879
1.488
0.057
1 . 1 1 2
1.835
0.890
0.643
1.156
0.424
1.382
1 . 6 6 8 ,
0.889
1.783
1.624
0.064
3 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1.264
0.908
0.350
1.224
1.401
0.581
1.426
0 . 6 9 0
0 . 8 6 6
1.832
0.625
0.817
0.256
0.768
0 . 0 1 2
1.128
0.791
0.976
1.635
1.490
0.513
1.264
0.631
0.915
0.036
0.873
0.099
4 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.746
0.816
0.172
0.342
0.515
0.385
0.138
0.438
0.387
1.345
0.384
0.389
0.682
0.529
0.721
0.249
0.213
0.016
0.494
0.609
0.523
1.577
0.385
0.267
5 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.506
1.301
0.154
1.108
1.142
0.166
1.226
1.331
0.460
0.109
1.412
0.456
0.573
0.670
0.245
0 . 0 0 0
1.407
0.341
1.284
1.265
0.440
6 0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.917
1.155
0.038
1.329
0.299
0.600
0.369
0.041
0.276
0.203
1.436
0.450
0 . 2 1 0
0 . 0 0 0
0.191
1.344
0.280 S
0.592 M
TABLE 58"-Continued
8
10
11
7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
0 . 0 0 0 1.709 1.042 0.591 0.800 1.645
0 . 0 0 0 0.131 0 . 1 2 1 0.831 0.136 0.088
0 . 0 0 0 0.664 0.260 0.481 0.197 0.658
0 . 0 0 0 1.081 1.917 1.162 0.278
0 . 0 0 0 0.331 0.817 0.267 0.077
0 . 0 0 0 0.869 0.392 0.791 0.142
0 . 0 0 0 0.848 0 . 1 2 0 1.079
0 . 0 0 0 1.132 0.035 0.265
0 . 0 0 0 0.677 0.177 1.004
0 . 0 0 0 0.439 1.640
0 . 0 0 0 0.911 0.823
0 . 0 0 0 0.603 0.308
0 . 0 0 0 1.204
0 . 0 0 0 0.238
0 . 0 0 0 0.843
f05 level of confidence N ■ 22
DF » 20
TABLE 59
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRETEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
OF HIGH AND LOW RANKED MALE GROUPS
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept Mpg
High
Actual Self 1.368
Slow Learner - .026
Ideal Self 2.500
School Administration 1.079
Teachers 1.342
Discipline 1.395
Punishment .671
Counseling 1.947
College 1.658
MFS
Low
t
MFS
High
MFS
Low
1.318 .243 .974 .807
. 0 1 1 .168 - .566 - .295
2.182 1.704 1.632 1.455
.966 .325 .553 .761
1.273 .274 .316 .080
1.318 .335 .684 1 . 0 0 0
.739 .203 .539 .784
2.045 .387 .737 .648
1.307 1.586 .579 .648
t
MFS
High
MFS
Low
t
1 . 1 2 0 .368 .477 .470
1.548 .092 .170 1 . 1 0 0
.980 .132 . 0 0 0 .557
.966 .342 .523 .898
1.315 .500 .284 1.067
1.469 .803 .545 1.239
1.084 1.026 .807 1.007
.515 - .026 - .295 1.697
.567 .829 .864 .153
N>
W
Table 59--Continued
Concept
Evaluative ] Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS
High
MFS
Low
t
MFS
High
MFS
Low
t
MFS
High
MFS
Low
t
Average Student .303 .523 1.117 . 0 0 0 - .136 1.260 .171 .386 1.545
Gifted Student 1.355 1.023 1.366 .816 .818 .013 .645 .693 .274
Counselor 2.026 2.057 .142 .750 .705 .366 .132 - .136 1.284
N High Ranked Group »
N Low Ranked Group =
Degrees of Freedom »
19
2 2
39
to
"vl
• c -
TABLE 60
VALUES OF t BETWEEN POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
OF HIGH AND LOW RANKED MALE GROUP
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
High High t High High t High High t
High
Low
High
Low High Low
Actual Self 1.434 1.318 .496 .842 .636 1.284 .697 .534 .741
Slow Learner .013 .023 - .049 - .421 - .557 .864 .197 .091 .500
Ideal Self 2.250 2.193 .057 1.382 1.318 .422 .276 .057 1.160
School Administration .408 .284 .454 .526 .307 .933 .592 .375 1.401
Teachers .895 .966 - .298 .132 - .386 2.036a .474 .534 - .302
Discipline .566 .716 - .150 .395 .795 -2.614a .803 .682 .641
Punishment .092 .091 .004 .474 - .693 -1.282 .921 .705 1.042
Counseling 1.882 2 . 0 0 0 - .472 .974 .591 2.311a .289 .045 1.115
College 1.158 1.057 . 1 0 1 .474 .773 -2.105a .763 .977 - .945
M
*>J
TABLE 60— Continued
Concept
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS
High
High
MFS
High t
Low
MFS
High
High
MFS
High t
Low
MFS
High
High
MFS
High t
Low
Average Student .355 .568 - .213 .092 .125 - .274 .329 .364 - .222
Gifted Student 1.158 .966 .801 .618 .795 -1.148 .526 .864 -1.711
Counselor 1.816 2.159 -1.183 .724 .625 .601 .118 .136 - .085
a.05 level of significance N High Ranked Group ® 19
N Low Ranked Group = 2 2
Degrees of Freedom ■ 39
NJ
o\
TABLE 61
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE HIGH RANKED MALE GROUP
Concept
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
Actual Self 1.368 1.434 .132 .974 .842 .266 .368 .697 .492
Slow Learner - .026 .013 .051 - .566 - * .421 .281 - .092 .197 .449
Ideal Self 2.500 2.250 .563 1.632 1.382 .487 .132 .276 .207
School Administration 1.079 .408 .618 .553 .526 .035 .342 .592 .358
Teachers 1.342 .895 .583 .316 .132 .299 .500 .474 .045
Discipline 1.395 .566 .896 .684 .395 .452 .803 .803 .000
Punishment .671 .092 .530 .539 .474 .111 1.026 .921 .207
Counseling 1.947 1.882 .100 .737 .974 .538 - .026 .289 .546
College 1.658 1.158 1.042 .579 .474 .178 .829 .763 .096
TABLE 61— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
Average Student .303 .355 .102 .000 .092 .247 .171 .329 .360
Gifted Student 1.355 1.158 .237 .816 .618 .440 .645 .526 .152
Counselor 2.026 1.816 .332 .750 .724 .063 .132 .118 .022
N = 19
DF = 17
ro
»vj
oo
TABLE 62
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE LOW RANKED MALE GROUP
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept ws
Pre
Actual Self 1.318
Slow Learner .011
Ideal Self 2.182
School Administration .966
Teachers 1.273
Discipline 1.625
Punishment .739
Counseling 2.045
College 1.307
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
1.318 .000 .807 .636
.023 .021 - .295 - .557
2.193 .013 1.455 1.318
.284 .382 .761 .307
.966 .327 .080 - .386
.716 .767 1.000 .795
.091 .573 .784 .693
2.000 .080 .648 .591
1.057 .285 .648 .773
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
322 .447 .534 .094
334 .170 .091 .100
230 .000 .057 .069
415 .523 .375 .196
501 .284 .534 .271
230 .545 .682 .158
114 .807 .705 .133
108 - .295 .045 .501
299 .864 .977 .110
'si
VO
TABLE 62— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Average Student .523 .568 .088 - .136 .125 .786 .386 .264 .033
Gifted Student 1.023 .966 .067 .818 .795 .038 .693 .864 .219
Counselor 2.057 2.159 .199 .705 .625 .191 - .136 .136 .283
N - 22
DF » 20
t o
00
o
TABLE 63
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS OF
EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE HIGH RANKED FEMALE GROUP
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.831
0.194
0.357
1.073
2.054a
0.929
0.338
0.230
0.299
0.232
0.105
0.250
0.515
1.657
0.477
0.514
0.807
0.133
0.745
0.965
0.464
0.537
1.028
1.110
0.842
0.150
0.130
0.242
1.503
0.903
0.821
0.623
0.484
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.203a
1.073
0.457
0.150
0.264
0.020
0.411
0.000
0.225
1.034
1.284
0.082
0.320
0.720
0.856
1.211
1.108
0.150
1.244
0.932
0.996
0.026
0.267
0.303
0.919
1.246
0.811
1.349
0.722
0.161
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.604
0.253
0.421
2.287a
0.687
0.639
0.807
0.070
0.455
1.932
0.023
0.815
0.719
0.205
0.238
1.279
0.044
1.618
3.608b
0.855
0.722
1.794
0.585
1.388
0.647
0.194
0.318
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.863
0.486
0.187
0.143
0.266
0.071
1.221
0.297
0.517
0.810
0.350
0.126
0.158
0.235
0.800
0.692
0.202
0.219
1.518
0.649
0.980
0.584
0.156
0.126
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.873
0.811
0.284
1.349
0.720
0.421
0.953
0.767
0.303
0.459
0.728
1.086
0.662
0.255
0.134
1.733
1.164
0.896
0.513
0.973
0.370
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.144
0.025
0.510
0.343
0.169
0.165
0.085
0.000
1.105
1.092
1.216
0.360
0.262
0.746
0.947
0.220
0.295
0.139
281
TABLE 63— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.208
0.161
0.418
0.899
0.022
0.542
0.015
0.682
0.409
0.636
0.647
0.579
1.152
0.220
0.540
8 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.387
0.160
1.000
1.750
0.934
0.352
0.964
0.326
0.848
0.075
0.361
0.054
9 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.628
1.116
0.966
0.276
0.488
0.157
0.301
0.202
1.267
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.621
1.328
0.794
1.685
0.634
0.512
11 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.958
0.893
0.932
£.05 level of significance
.01 level of significance
N - 13
DF = 11
N>
TABLE 64
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS OF
EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE HIGH RANKED FEMALE GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.940
0.724
0.574
1.188
1.050
0.715
0.903
0.205
0.104
1.282
0.182
0.092
0.311
1.063
0.110
0.996
0.357
0.273
0.769
1.101
0.229
0.083
1.003
0.417
1.538
0.139
0.219
0.169
0.919
0.134
0.930
2.024
0.043
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.487
1.163
0.101
0.283
0.628
0.351
0.274
0.517
0.700
0.673
1.422
0.584
0.618
0.852
0.563
1.103
1.311
0.353
1.005
1.425
0.907
0.156
0.715
0.244
1.094
1.451
0.412
1.880
1.566
0.722
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.371
0.150
0.360
1.866
0.514
0.681
0.863
0.602
0.605
1.426
0.042
0.686
0.443
0.624
0.203
0.811
0.498
1.063
1.932
0.594
0.299
0.989
0.448
0.405
0.059
0.824
0.580
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.189
0.381
0.255
0.253
0.181
0.216
0.703
0.065
0.303
1.160
0.333
0.119
0.640
0.229
0.636
0.563
0.405
0.137
0.820
0.287
0.032
1.505
0.295
0.190
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.383
0.824
0.024
0.706
0.544
0.124
1.349
0.781
0.357
0.799
0.793
0.341
0.644
0.147
0.525
1.321
0.883
0.325
1.866
0.839
0.066
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.216
0.207
0.271
0.668
0.341
0.334
0.392
0.170
0.334
0.849
0.967
0.411
0.376
0.164
0.224
0.978
0.242
0.044
283
TABLE 64— Continued
8
10
11
7 8 9 10 11 12
0.000 1.186 1.077 0.494 1.024 1.571
0.000 0.351 0.244 0.736 0.352 0.347
0.000 0.394 0.098 0.537 0.322 0.156
0.000 0.586 1.510 0.614 0.251
0.000 0.266 0.900 0.120 0.170
0.000 0.656 0.000 0.133 0.482
0.000 1.535 0.174 0.839
0.000 0.876 0.053 0.073
0.000 0.590 0.568 0.419
0.000 1.345 1.987
0.000 1.038 1.096
0.000 0.111 0.246
0.000 1.194
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.262
N - 13
DF = 11
284
TABLE 65
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS OF
EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE LOW RANKED FEMALE GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.000 2.172 0.951 0.356 0.389 0.060
0.000 0.236 1.118 0.752 0.260 0.896
0.000 0.727 2.286 0.631 0.781 0.536
0.000 3.310a 1.121 2.291a 1.803
0.000 0.784 0.805 0.414 0.628
0.000 0.605 0.253 0.190 0.171
0.000 0.790 1.290 0.640
0.000 0.335 0.292 0.101
0.000 1.346 0.997 1.077
0.000 0.047 0.521
0.000 0.624 0.400
0.000 0.143 0.066
0.000 0.237
0.000 0.382
0.000 0.018
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.019
0.655
0.660
0.499
0.727
2.030
0.029
1.627
0.027
0.976
0.073
0.722
0.503
1.441
0.158
1.121
1.444
1.960
1.211
0.598
0.069
3.326a
0.577
0.674
3.337b
1.018
0.568
0.960
0.159
0.186
1.365
1.286
0.752
3.117
0.849
0.653
1.641
0.033
0.819
0.734
0.088
0.028
0.873
0.606
2.114
1.551
0.789
1.907
1.264
0.871
1.376
0.229
0.529
0.084
0.684
0.671
0.157
0.624
0.382
0.888
0.374
0.148
0.690
0.595
1.341
0.097
0.023
0.020
0.871
0.915
0.191
1.206
0.518
0.312
0.062
0.866
0.415
0.797
0.442
0.767
0.032
0.640
0.603
0.929
0.041
0.929
0.941
0.939
0.655
0.725
1.269
0.143
0.145
0.425
0.042
1.131
0.030
0.595
0.500
1.266
1.424
0.000
0.473
0.488
0.528
0.797
0.552
1.068
285
TABLE 65— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 XI 12
7 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.534
0.222
0.741
1.122
0.857
0.557
0.078
2.236
0.099
1.818
0.559
0.538
0.747
0.500
0.702
8 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.621
0.359
1.240
1.470
1.294
0.893
1.231
0.382
1.169
0.450
0.248
0.083
9 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.403
2.412®
0.984
0.440
0.240
0.127
0.807
0.143
1.603
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.720
1.284
0.674
1.814
1.677
1.003
11 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
0.299
1.412
£.05 level of significance
.01 level of significance
N * 10
DF = 8
TABLE 66
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS OF
EVALUATIVE, POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE LOW RANKED FEMALE GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.300a 1.316
1.249 0.333
0.790 0.619
1.342
0.524
1.071
0.883
0.102
0.897
1.065
0.220
0.931
2.330a
0.239
0.432
0.509
0.411
0.941
0.837
1.204
0.076
1.510
0.476
0.542
0.565
0.571
0.098
0.229
0.397
1.048
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
3.605a
1.261
0.418
0.967
1.493
0.330
1.042
0.661
0.546
0.863
1.242
0.233
0.044
1.182
1.012
2.952a
1.227
0.041
1.539
1.793
0.711
0.587
0.595
0.533
1.431
1.604
1.020
1.712
1.622
0.182
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
3.727b
0.367
0.000
2.272a
0.273
0.155
2.237a
0.037
0.020
3.030a
0.079
1.017
0.883
0.287
0.388
2.101a
1.093
0.552
3.605b
0.581
0.299
2.764a
0.346
0.792
0.541
0.305
0.219
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.338
0.508
0.143
0.075
0.573
0.029
0.884
0.339
0.923
2.184a
0.195
0.403
0.757
0.052
1.280
1.294
1.884
0.359
1.088
0.134
0.711
1.293
0.163
0.247
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.123
0.349
0.136
0.988
0.353
1.432
1.506
1.340
0.527
0.406
0.813
0.616
0.665
0.264
0.190
0.534
0.428
0.713
0.813
0.663
0.469
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.767
0.049
0.879
1.859
0.313
0.299
0.530
0.684
0.561
0.405
1.085
0.255
0.737
0.349
0.598
1.022
0.280
0.159
287
TABLE 66--Continued
8
9
10
11
7 8 9 10 11 12
0.000 3.385b 1.938 0.504 1.341 1.741
0.000 0.202 0.722 0.689 0.399 0.250
0.000 1.467 0.499 1.011 0.299 1.800
0.000 1.446 2.308 1.035 0.068
0.000 0.267 0.853 0.073 0.039
0.000 1.319 0.950 1.164 0.220
0.000 1.086 0.200 0.881
0.000 1.265 0.118 0.176
0.000 0.619 0.152 1.093
0.000 1.333 1.562
0.000 0.989 0.766
0.000 0.676 0.655
0.000 0.575
0.000 0.058
0.000 1.458
f .0 5 level of significance N » 10
.01 level of significance DF ■ 8
N>
00
00
TABLE 67
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRETEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
OF HIGH RANKED AND LOW RANKED FEMALE GROUPS
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
High
MFS
Low
t
MFS
High
MFS
Low
t
MFS
High
MFS
Low
t
Actual Self .865 1.825 -3.749b - .038 - .325 1.373 .558 .825 -1.098
Slow Learner .173 - .075 .853 - .540 .550 1.190 .250 .000 .724
Ideal Self 2.481 2.550 - .274 .615 .150 2.174a - .269 - .775 1.694
School Administration .385 1.375 -1.991 .288 .550 - .595 .269 .300 - .031
Teachers .596 1.450 -2.558a - .154 - .075 - .308 .404 .200 .996
Discipline 1.500 1.775 - .631 .654 .200 2.518a .173 .225 - .134
Punishment .212 .825 -1.383 .635 .125 2.104s .673 .100 1.423
Counseling 1.885 2.200 - .961 .788 .225 2.031 .038 - .750 1.700
College 1.423 1.800 -1.201 .654 .425 1.218 1.192 .850 1.071
ho
00
to
TABLE 67— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
High
MFS
Low
MFS
High
MFS
Low
t
MFS
High
MFS
Low
t
Average Student .192 .750 -1.866 .038 - .375 3.133a .462 .225 1.053
Gifted Student 1.135 1.400 - .791 1.038 .575 2.181s 1.327 1.025 .839
Counseling 1.802 2.400 -2.058 .462 .375 .501 .077 - .700 2.181
.05 level of significance
.01 level of significance
N High Ranked Group - 13
N Low Ranked Group = ■ 10
Degrees of Freedom - 21
h o
lO
o
TABLE 68
VALUES OF t BETWEEN POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
OF HIGH RANKED AND LOW RANKED FEMALE GROUPS
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
High Low t High Low t High Low t
Actual Self 1.077 1.800 -2.647a .058 .100 - .204 .615 .700 - .298
Slow Learner .115 - .125 .856 - .462 .100 - .204 .115 - .250 1.141
Ideal Self 1.750 2.550 -3.515b .346 .225 .632 .192 .125 .242
School Administration .423 .675 - .873 .327 .625 - .786 .500 .125 1.296
Teachers .308 .900 -1.875 - .115 .000 - .410 .712 .225 2.912
Discipline .692 .750 - .146 .558 .250 1.726 .692 .100 1.909
Punishment - .596 - .100 -1.119 .385 .275 .434 .846 1.075 - .646
Counseling 1.596 2.100 -1.539 .750 .425 1.448 .385 - .200 1.896
College 1.000 1.275 -1.045 .635 .575 .323 .962 .650 1.047
TABLE 68--Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
High Low
t
High
Low
t
High
Low
t
Average Student .019 .350 -1.648 - .038 - .250 1.099 .385 .325 .265
Gifted Student 1.173 1.425 - .914 .673 .500 .673 .581 .800 -1.205
Counselor 1.788 2.025 - .237 .673 .450 .982 .654 - .050 2.533a
.05 level of significance N High Ranked Group - 13
.01 level of significance N Low Ranked Group = 10
Degrees of Freedom » 21
N>
VO
N)
TABLE 69
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE HIGH RANKED FEMALE GROUP
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Pre
Actual Self .865
Slow Learner .173
Ideal Self 2.481
School Administration .385
Teachers .596
Discipline 1.500
Punishment .212
Counseling 1.885
College 1.423
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
1.077 .225 - .038 .058
.115 .111 - .154 - .462
1.750 1.039 .615 .346
.423 .047 .288 .327
.308 .387 - .154 - .115
.692 .607 .654 .558
.596 .553 .635 .385
1.596 .498 .788 .750
1.000 .627 .654 .635
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
249 .558 .615 .053
462 .250 .115 .208
489 - .269 .192 .563
064 .269 .500 .213
059 .404 .712 .508
167 .173 .692 .445
311 .673 .846 .191
088 .038 .385 .308
040 1.192 .962
.289
N>
vO
CO
TABLE 69— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
Pre Post
t
Pre Post
t
Pre Post
t
Average Student .192 .019 .450 .038 ■ ■ .038 .214 .462 .385 .089
Gifted Student 1.135 1.173 .056 1.038 .673 .592 1.327 .481 .799
Counselor 1.808 1.788 .021 .462 .673 .289 .077 .654 . 846
N - 13
DF = 11
NJ
\ 0
TABLE 70
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE LOW RANKED FEMALE GROUP
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
Actual Self 1.825 1.800 . 046 - .325 .100 1.052 .825 .700 .243
Slow Learner - .075 - .125 .063 - .550 - .700 .152 .000 - .250 .262
Ideal Self 2.550 2.550 .000 .150 .225 .179 - .775 .125 1.125
School Administration 1.375 .675 .640 .550 .625 .1055 .300 .125 .200
Teachers 1.450 .900 .467 - .075
.000
.167 .200 .225 .049
Discipline 1.775 .750 .713 .200 .250 .073 .225 .100 .118
Punishment .825 - .100 .697 .125 .275 .273 .100 1.075 .646
Counseling 2.200 2.100 .107 .225 .425 .413 - .570 - .200 .393
College 1.800 1.275 .494 .425 .575 .750 .850 .650 .280
ls >
vO
Ln
TABLE 70— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
Pre Post Pre Post
t
Pre Post
t
Average Student .750 .350 .571 - .375 ■ - .250 .186 .225 .325 .222
Gifted Student 1.400 1.425 .022 .575 .500 .124 1.025 .800 .377
Counselor 2.400 2.025 .368 .375 .450 .093 - .700 ■ ■ .050 .570
N - 10
DF - 8
fO
v O
< 3 \
TABLE 71
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRETEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
OF HIGH RANKED MALE AND FEMALE GROUPS
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
Males Females Males Females Males Females t
Actual Self 1.368 .865 2.007 .974 - .038 5.460b .368 .558 .798
Slow Learner - .026 .173 .715 - .566 - .154 1.866 - .092 .250 1.272
Ideal Self 2.500 2.481 .100 1.632 .615 4.759b .132 - .269 1.498
School Administration 1.079 .385 1.731 .553 .228 .740 .342 .269 .333
Teachers 1.342 .596 2.623a .316 - .154 1.895 .500 .404 .559
Discipline 1.395 1.500 .286 .684 .654 .193 .803 .173 2.530*
Punishment .671 .212 1.114 .539 .635 .373 1.026 .673 1.606
Counseling 1.947 1.885 .202 .737 .788 .215 - .026 .038 .172
College
1.658 1.423 .914 .579 ,654 .387 .829 1.192 1.436
N)
VO
TABLE 71— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS MFS t MFS MFS t MFS MFS
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Average Student .303 .192 .599 .000 .038 .395 .171 .462 1.785
Gifted Student 1.355 1.135 .930 .816 1.038 1.137 .645 1.327 2.628'
Counselor 2.026 1.802 .786 .750 .462 1.855 .132 .077 .179
?.05 level of significance
.01 level of significance
N High Ranked Males
N High Ranked Females
Degrees of Freedom
- 19
= 13
- 30
298
TABLE 72
VALUES OF t BETWEEN POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES OF
HIGH RANKED MALE AND FEMALE GROUPS
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
Males Females Males Females C Males Females
Actual Self 1.434 1.077 1.560 .842 .058 4.178a .697 .615 .276
Slow Learner .013 .115 - .501 - .241 - .462 .213 .197 .115 .347
Ideal Self 2.250 1.750 2.238a 1.382 .346 6.715a .276 .192 .394
School Administration .408 .423 - .044 .526 .327 .598 .592 .500 .411
Teachers .895 .308 2.564a .132 - .115 .955 .474 .712 -1.323
Discipline .566 .692 - .416 .395 .558 - .908 .803 .692 .492
Punishment .092 - .596 1.657 .474 .385 .407 .921 .846 .246
Counseling 1.882 1.596 .898 .974 .750 1.075 .289 .385 - .378
College 1.158 1.000 .607 .474 .635 - .800 .763 .962 -
.791
TABLE 72— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept MpS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Average Student .355 .019 1.657 .092 - .038 .989 .329 .385 - .274
Gifted Student 1.158 1.173 - .055 .618 .673 - .332 .526 .481 .189
Counselor 1.816 1.788 .094 .724 .673 .304 .118 .654 -1.939
a.05 level of significance N High Ranked Males =
N High Ranked Females «
Degrees of Freedom »
19
13
30
10
o
o
TABLE 73
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRETEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
OF LOW RANKED MALE AND FEMALE GROUPS
Concept
Evaluative Factor
MFS MFS
Males Females
Potency Factor
MFS MFS
Males Females
Activity Factor
MFS MFS
Males Females
Actual Self 1.318 1.825 2.386a .807 - .325 6.375b .477 .825 1.469
Slow Learner .011 - .075 .366 - .295 - .550 .838 .170 .000 .528
Ideal Self 2.182 2.550 .368 1.455 .150 7.218b .000 - .775 2.854b
School Administration .966 1.373 .899 .761 .550 .631 .523 .300 1.005
Teachers 1.273 1.450 .577 .080 - .075 .814 .284 .200 .363
Discipline
1.318 1.775 1.390 1.000 .200 3.426b .545 .225 .883
Punishment .739 .825 .231 .784 .125 3.161b .807 .100 1.761
Counseling 2.045 2.200 .557 .648 .225 1.879 - .295 - .750 1.429
College 1.307 1.800 1.728 .648 .425 1.984 .864 .850 .047
Concept
TABLE 73— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Average Student .523 .750 .741 - .136 - .375 1.700 .386 .225 .773
Gifted Student 1.023 1.400 1.110 .818 .575 1.404 .693 1.025 1.089
Counselor 2.057 2.400 1.517 .705 .375 2.267a - .136 - .700 2.048a
f.05 level of significance
.01 level of significance
N Low Ranked Males -
N Low Ranked Females =
Degrees of Freedom =
22
10
30
oj
o
ro
TABLE 74
VALUES OF t BETWEEN POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
OF LOW RANKED MALE AND FEMALE GROUPS
Evaluative Factor
Concept
MFS
Males
MFS
Females
t
Actual Self 1.318 1.800 1.738
Slow Learner .023 - .125 .525
Ideal Self 2.193 2.550 1.672
School administration .284 .675 1.874
Teachers .966 .900 .066
Discipline .716 .750 .102
Punishment .091 - .100 .615
Counseling 2.000 2.100 .383
College 1.057 1.275 .668
Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS MFS MFS MFS
Males Females Males Females
.636 .100 2.956b .534 .700 .818
.557 - .700 .633 .091 - .250 1.127
1.318 .225 5.772b .057 .125 .263
.307 .625 1.070 .375 .125 1.042
.386 .000 1.398 .534 .225 1.648
.795 .250 3.590b .682 .100 2.047b
.693 .275 1.956 .705 1.075 1.342
.591 .425 .895 .045 - .200 .874
.773 .575 1.658 .977 .650 1.180
u>
TABLE 74— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
Males
MFS t
Females
MFS MFS t
Males Females
MFS
Males
MFS t
Females
Average Student .568 .350 .964 .125 - .250 2.021 .364 .325 .210
Gifted Student .966 1.425 1.898 .795 .500 1.182 .864 .800 .280
Counselor 2.159 2.025 .391 .625 .450 .778 .136 - .050 .868
k.01 level of significance N Low Ranked Males = 22
N Low Ranked Females = 10
Degrees of Freedom =30
TABLE 75
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS OF EVALUATIVE,
POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR HIGH KNOWLEDGE, HIGH RANKED GROUPS
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.069
1.131
0.329
1.228
1.720
0.320
0.438
0.036
0.232
0.222
0.395
0.073
0.050
0.112
0.589
0.557
0.060
0.627
0.563
0.249
0.288
0.361
0.014
0.900
1.355
0.716
0.056
0.085
0.389
0.738
0.759
0.136
0.235
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.137a
1.759
0.033
0.583
0.871
0.112
0.857
0.776
0.416
1.111
1.461
0.686
0.434
0.854
0.723
1.362
1.263
0.159
1.334
1.095
1.047
0.225
0.785
0.361
1.138
1.569
0.880
1.799
1.716
0.157
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.709
0.751
0.107
2.042s
1.231
0.399
1.163
0.669
0.830
1.613
0.783
0.856
0.6231
0.532
0.124
1.112
0.674
0.962
3.055b
1.548
0.358
1.431
0.350
0.863
0.565
0.827
0.115
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.395
0.313
0.370
0.469
0.141
0.751
0.189
0.014
0.878
1.099
0.309
0.011
0.743
0.053
0.857
0.615
0.584
0.196
0.576
0.520
0.855
1.098
0.142
0.000
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.174
0.534
0.592
0.442
0.282
0.652
0.817
0.728
0.320
0.651
0.479
1.016
0.958
0.334
0.164
0.339
0.838
0.675
1.038
0.680
0.358
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.163
0.167
0.199
0.640
0.148
0.815
0.373
1.206
0.208
1.066
0.449
0.836
0.120
0.000
0.166
0.767
0.193
0.834
305
TABLE 75— Continued
8
10
11
7 8 9 10 11 12
0.000 1.338 0.939 0.339 0.700 1.343
0.000 0.372 0.081 0.593 0.508 0.173
0.000 0.733 0.056 0.848 0.062 0.802
0.000 0.326 1.829 0.839 0.241
0.000 0.242 1.076 0.199 0.224
0.000 1.603 0.195 0.928 0.024
0.000 1.501 0.198 0.565
0.000 0.899 0.516 0.116
0.000 1.230 0.017 1.549
0.000 1.491 2.214a
0.000 1.414 1.351
0.000 0.932 0.281
0.000 1.248
0.000 0.429
0.000 0.852
f.05 level of confidence N « 21
.01 level of confidence DF » 19
TABLE 76
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS OF EVALUATIVE,
POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR HIGH KNOWLEDGE, HIGH RANKED GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6
0.000 1.191 1.137 0.826 0.780 0.553
0.000 0.957 0.990 0.012 0.340 0.131
0.000 0.352 0.417 0.207 0.171 0.422
0.000 1.945 0.295 0.718 0.792
0.000 1.467 0.807 0.574 1.513
0.000 0.131 0.791 0.535 0.623
0.000 1.409 1.856 1.255
0.000 0.468 0.944 0.487
0.000 0.505 0.481 0.630
0.000 0.315 0.226
0.000 0.315 0.108
0.000 0.054 0.106
0.000 0.085
0.000 0.634
0.000 0.148
0.000
0.000
0.000
7 8 9 10 11 12
1.083
0.033
0.778
0.592
0.647
0.040
0.209
0.040
0.345
1.656
0.602
0.180
0.487
0.171
0.284
0.647
0.274
0.133
0.076
1.194
0.752
1.274
1.570
0.316
1.107
1.101
0.736
0.101
0.763
0.291
1.003
1.332
0.748
1.739
1.413
0.187
1.817
0.609
0.887
0.560
0.000
0 210
1.174
0.542
0.537
2.517a
1.387
0.096
1.410
0.275
0.616
0.345
0.376
0.076
0.238
0.016
0.399
1.027
0.718
0.260
0.659
0.028
0.225
0.256
0.536
0.577
0.579
0.151
0.080
1.254
0.251
0.343
0.624
0.411
0.361
1.078
0.980
0.189
0.509
0.508
0.260
0.952
0.142
0.390
0.299
0.535
0.131
1.277
0.578
0.310
0.657
0.177
0.404
0.860
0.561
0.325
0.481
0.117
0.107
0.634
1.142
0.513
0.304
0.068
0.016
1.121
0.159 w
0.376 ©
Nl
TABLE 76— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.000 1.308 0.938 0.000 0.988 1.816
0.000 0.898 0.019 0.875 0.213 0.365
0.000 0.564 0.166 0.641 0.279 0.556
0.000 0.650 1.454 1.066 0.111
0.000 0.792 1.542 0.600 0.726
0.000 0.346 0.143 0.393 0.151
0.000 1.253 0.208 0.804
0.000 0.942 0.224 0.256
0.000 0.511 0.134 0.481
0.000 1.102 1.797
0.000 0.984 1.053
0.000 0.522 0.013
0.000 1.350
0.000 0.092
0.000 0.604
a,05 level of significance N = 21
DF = 19
U)
o
00
TABLE 77
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN PRETEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS OF EVALUATIVE,
POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE HIGH KNOWLEDGE, LOW RANKED GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.437
1.021
0.655
1.330
0.755
1.300
0.176
0.233
0.111
0.152
0.308
0.387
0.063
0.361
0.083
0.449
0.111
0.085
1.226
0.196
1.417
0.021
0.178
0.704
0.827
0.713
0.414
0.453
0.101
0.148
1.474
0.560
1.421
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.102
1.375
0.507
0.894
0.982
0.496
1.288
0.691
0.343
1.123
1.145
0.513
1.060
1.147
0.567
2.800a
1.044
0.576
1.585
1.178
0.929
0.870
0.447
0.308
0.808
0.952
0.616
2.614a
1.551
0.522
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.965
0.255
1.363
1.308
0.967
1.205
0.871
0.353
1.397
1.296
0.565
1.179
0.206
0.386
0.022
0.987
0.496
1.901
1.757
1.239
1.316
1.628
0.698
1.494
0.108
1.239
0.047
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.034
0.678
0.417
0.299
0.023
0.000
0.245
0.278
0.000
0.847
0.142
1.254
0.041
0.318
0.562
0.577
1.038
0.447
0.181
0.319
0.000
0.916
0.041
1.063
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.186
0.668
0.252
0.273
0.651
0.252
1.312
0.567
0.872
0.132
0.624
1.185
0.955
0.459
0.134
0.250
0.557
0.535
1.204
0.855
1.004
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.654
0.437
1.584
0.858
0.264
0.404
0.074
0.283
0.350
0.935
1.315
0.000
0.453
0.418
1.288
0.884
0.103
0.098
TABLE 77--Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.854
0.173
1.811
0.523
0.127
0.344
0.062
1.668
0.315
1.616
0.000
0.000
0.367
0.497
1.239
8 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.156
0.033
1.658
2.830a
1.192
0.933
1.637
0.124
1.286
0.152
0.283
0.082
9 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.140
1.620
1.364
0.602
0.184
0.606
1.349
0.427
1.908
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
C ,426
1.055
0.505
2.214a
1.883
0.812
11 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.516a
0.481
1.303
.05 level of confidence N = 12
DF = » 10
o
TABLE 78
MATRIX OF INTRAGROUP t TEST VALUES BETWEEN POSTTEST FACTOR SCORE MEANS OF EVALUATIVE,
POTENCY, AND ACTIVITY FACTORS FOR THE HIGH KNOWLEDGE, LOW RANKED GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.615
0.910
0.879
1.177
0.645
0.733
1.125
0.399
0.722
0.597
0.801
0.703
0.917
0.057
0.099
2.359a
0.212
0.292
0.781
0.025
1.568
0.395
0.381
0.238
1.171
1.134
0.806
0.239
0.000
0.102
0.597
0.209
1.504
2 0.000
0.000
0.000
2.017
1.753
0.257
0.018
1.020
0.570
0.665
0.312
0.654
0.378
1.786
0.690
0.260
1.467
1.196
3.111s
1.260
0.292
1.236
2.036
1.184
0.277
0.734
0.479
1.951
2.086
1.286
1.768
1.559
0.170
3 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.851
0.570
0.402
1.337
0.875
0.521
1.569
0.446
0.660
2.253a
0.629
1.259
0.385
0.376
0.582
1.117
0.363
1.073
1.749
1.193
0.403
1.165
0.540
1.272
0.137
0.269
0.024
4 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.858
0.459
0.056
0.366
0.449
0.420
0.157
0.208
0.857
1.996
0.386
1.782
1.309
0.525
1.599
0.241
0.560
0.162
1.181
0.385
1.268
1.380
0.469
0.728
5 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.484
0.925
0.371
1.093
0.946
1.225
1.298
1.241
1.229
0.262
1.128
0.703
0.604
0.124
0.264
0.377
0.968
0.811
0.876
1.204
0.651
6 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.967
0.427
0.363
1.717
0.076
1.143
0.538
0.180
0.261
0.292
1.660
0.514
0.666
0.072
0.250
1.221
0.192 w
0.706 ^
TABLE 78— Continued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 0.000
0.000
0.000
3.639b
0.195
2.140
1.415
0.566
0.074
0.546
0.814
1.219
1.466
0.279
0.276
2.078
0.574
1.627
8 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.146
0.271
2.533a
2.412a
0.943
1.273
1.091
0.025,
3.881
0.153
0.374
0.878
9 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.917
1.218
1.048
0.237
0.302
0.203
0.892
0.000
1.838
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
1.119
1.177
1.186
1.531
1.095
0.471
11 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.801
0.245
1.691
^.05 level of significance N = 12
.01 level of significance DF = 10
u>
i 1 - 1
! to
TABLE 79
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRETEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES OF
HIGH KNOWLEDGE, HIGH RANKED AND
HIGH KNOWLEDGE, LOW RANKED GROUPS
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
High
High
High
Low
t High
Higjh
High
Low
t
High
High
High
Low
t
Actual Self 1.286 1.521 - .887 .536 .417 .442 .310 .583 -1.405
Slow Learner .083 .104 - .021 - .476 - .500 .091 .012 - .042 .178
Ideal Self 2.476 2.479 - .003 1.167 1.021 .509 .036 - .604 2.864b
School Administration .798 1.333 -1.276 .500 .729 - .841 .131 .667 -2.326a
Teachers 1.071 1.375 -1.077 .214 .104 .540 .357 .333 .125
Discipline
1.238 1.583 - .956 .619 .708 - .471 .798 .667 .417
Punishmerit .619 1.042 -1.227 .488 .500 - .056 .893 .667 .721
Counseling 1.881 2.354 -2.082a .738 .583 .681 .143 - .625 2.864b
College 1.548 1.500 .175 .548 .562 - .110 .940 1.125 - .796£
w
TABLE 79— Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
High
High
MFS
High
Low
t
MFS MFS
Hi^i High
High Low
t
MFS
High
High
MFS
High
Low
t
Average Student .262 .667 -1.734 .036 - .167 1.687 .274 .250 .136
Gifted Student 1.369 1.104 1.033 .869 .500 2.372a .952 .667 1.426
Counselor 2.012 2.417 - .405 .619 .771 - .977 .131 - .562 2.581a
a 05
.01
level of significance
level of significance
N High Achieving High Ranked Group =
N High Achieving Low Ranked Group ■
Degrees of Freedom =
21
12
31
TABLE 80
VALUES OF t BETWEEN POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES OF HIGH KNOWLEDGE. HIGH RANKED
AND HIGH KNOWLEDGE,
Evaluative Factor
Concept
MFS
Males
MFS
Females
t
Actual Self 1.274 1.500 .832
Slow Learner .036 .146 .467
Ideal Self 2.060 2.250 .747
School Administration .369 .125 .676
Teachers .738 .896 .491
Discipline .655 .542
.399
Punishment .095 - .062 .157
Counseling 1.679 1.937 .982
College 1.095 1.167 .072
LOW RANKED GROUPS
Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS MFS t MFS MFS
Males Females Males Females
464 .604 .679 .417 .792 1.642
369 - .583 1.271 .107 - .250 1.328
940 1.042 .362 .202 - .060 1.040
476 .208 .871 .583 .292 1.628
119 - .271 1.453 .548 .333 1.230
571 .646 .395 .655 .687 .121
488 .437 .285 .893 1.083 .750
940 .583 1.692 .381 - .458 4.1211
500 .771 1.884 .738 1.000 1.022
TABLE 80--Continued
Concept
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Average Student .095 .333 1.028 .024 - .146 1.036 .262 .208 .297
Gifted Student .952 1.312 1.646 .619 .604 .093 .643 .875 .232
Counselor 1.750 2.104 1.159 .667 .771 .482 .274 - .083 1.522
k.01 level of significance N High Achieving High Ranked Group = 21
N High Achieving Low Ranked Group = 12
Degrees of Freedom =31
TABLE 81
VALUES OF t BETWEEN FRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE HIGH KNOWLEDGE, HIGH RANKED GROUP
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
Actual Self 1.286 1.274 .016 .536 .464 .122 .310 .417 .110
Slow Learner .083 .036 .069 - .476 - .369 .264 .012 .107 .175
Ideal Self 2.476 2.060 .644 1.167 .940 .442 .036 .202 .237
School Administration .798 .369 .422 .500 .476 .033 .131 .583 .645
Teachers 1.071 .738 .429 .214 .119 .159 .357 .548 .309
Discipline 1.238 .655 .657 .619 .571 .091 .798 .655 .263
Punishment .619 .095 .437 ,488 .488 .000 .893 .893 .000
Counseling 1.881 1.679 .326 .738 .940 .482 .143 .381 .338
College 1.548 1.095 .779 .548 .500 .077 .940 .738 .268
TABLE 81— Continued
Concept
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
Average Student .262 .095 .479 .036 .024 .530 .274 .262 .024
Gifted Student 1.369 .952 .740 .869 .619 .429 .952 .643 .329
Counselor 2.012 1.750 .376 .619 .667 .102 .131 .274 .217
N - 21 DF - 19
u>
i -1
00
TABLE 82
VALUES OF t BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTEST MEAN FACTOR SCORES
FOR THE HIGH KNOWLEDGE, LOW RANKED GROUP
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
Concept
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
MFS
Pre
MFS
Post
t
Actual Self 1.521 1.500 .058 .417 .604 .367 .583 .792 .380
Slow Learner .104 .146 .065 - .500 - .583 .105 - .042 - .250 .243
Ideal Self 2.479 2.250 .377 1.021 1.042 .049 - .604 - .062 .752
School Administration 1.333 .125 .802 .729 .208 .457 .667 .292 .367
Teachers 1.375 .896 .413 .104 - .271 .429 .333 .333 .000
Discipline 1.583 .542 .978 .708 .646 .094 .667 .687 .021
Punishment 1.042 - .062 .994 .500 .437 .125 .667 1.083 .294
Counseling 2.354 1.937 .697 .583 .583 .000 - .625 - .458 .160
College 1.500 1.167 .358 .562 .771 .687 1.125 1.000 .154
TABLE 82--Continued
Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor
MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS MFS
Pre Post Pre Post t Pre Post
Average Student .667 .333 .691 - .167 - ■ .146 .043 .250 .208 .079
Gifted Student 1.104 1.312 .258 .500 .604 .198 .667 .875 .346
Counselor 2.417 2.104 .441 .771 .771 .000 - .562 -- .083 .478
N - 12 DF * 10
u>
N>
O
SELECTED B I B L I O G R A P H Y
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. American Psychological Association, Education and
Training Board. Criteria for evaluating programs
in clinical and counseling psychology, Amer.
Psychologist. 1958, 13_, 59-60.
2. Arbuckle, D. S. The self shows in counseling, Per
sonnel Guidance J.. 1954, 33_, 159-161.
3. Arbuckle, D. S. Client perception of counselor per
sonality. J. counsel. Psychol.. 1956, 93-96.
4. Arbuckle, D. S. The education of the school counselor.
J. counsel. Psychol. , 1958, 5_, 58-61.
5. Arbuckle, D. S. Position paper--administrative rela
tionships. Counselor Education--A Progress Report
on Standards, American Personnel and Guidance
Association, April, 1962, 61-66.
6. Arbuckle, D. S. The learning of counseling: process
not product. J. counsel. Psychol.. 1963, 10.
7. Barry, R., and Wolf, B. Modern issues in guidance
personnel work. New York: Bureau of Publications,
Teachers College, Columbia University, n.d.
8. Beardsley, S. W. The ideal vocational counselor.
Occupations, 1948, 26, 528-532.
9. Bereiter, C. Using tests to measure change. Person
nel Guidance J.. 1962, 41, 6-11.
10. Black, F. A. Counseling laboratory experience. Per
sonnel Guidance J., 1953, 32, 36-38.
322
323
11. Bordin, E. S. Psychological counseling. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1955.
12. Borke, H. & Fiske, D. W. Factors influencing the
prediction of behavior from a diagnostic interview.
J. consul. Psychol. . 1957, 21_, 78-80.
13. Brammer, L. M., & Shostrum, E. L. Therapeutic psy
chology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960.
14. Brams, J. M. The relationship between personal char
acteristics of counseling trainees and effective
communication in counseling. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Univ. of Missouri, 1957.
15. Bridgewater, R. B., & Crookstra, B. B. An experiment
in counselor training at the master's level.
School and Society. 1962, 76_, 24-26.
16. Brown, D. J. An investigation of the relationships
between certain characteristics of guidance coun
selors and performance in supervised counseling.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State
Univer., 1960.
17. Burnett, C. W. Selection and training of school and
college personnel workers. Rev. Educ. Res.. 1954,
24, 111-117.
18. Clark, C. M. Changes in response patterns of coun
seling institute trainees. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The Ohio State Univer., 1960.
19. Cole, D. L. The prediction of teacher performance.
J. Educ. Res.. 1961, 54. 21-24.
20. Cottle, W. C. Personal characteristics of counselors:
Part I. A review of the literature. Personnel
Guidance J.. 1953, 31^ 445-450.
21. Cottle, W. C., and Lewis, W. W., Jr. Personal charac
teristics of counselors: Part II. Male counselor
responses on the MMPI and the G-ZTS. J. counsel.
Psychol. . 1954, lt 27-30.
324
22. Cottle, W. C. Personal characteristics of counselors:
Part III. An experimental scale. J. counsel.
Psychol. , 1954, _1, 74-77.
23. Cottle, W. C., and Wands, H. 0. Counselors and teach
ers take the experimental attitude scale, J. counsel.
Psychol.. 1955, 2, 28-31.
24. Daane, J. C. A study of empathic ability and related
variables among trained and practicing counselors.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana Univer.,
1955.
25. Davis, I. Analysis of a graduate program for college
student personnel work based on determined cri
teria. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana
Univer., 1956.
26. Demos, G. D., & Zuwaylif, F. Counselor attitudes in
relation to the theoretical positions of their
supervisors, Counselor Educ. Supervis., 1962, 2,
8-14.
27. Dugan, W. E. The impact of N.D.E.A. upon counselor
preparation, Personnel Guidance J.. 1960, 34,
37-40.
28. Endler, N. S. Changes in meaning during psychotherapy
as measured by the semantic differential, J.
counsel. Psychol., 1961, 8, 105-111.
29. Gazda, G., & Ohlsen, M. Effects of short term group
counseling on prospective counselors, Personnel
Guidance J. , 1961, 39., 634-638.
30. Gibby, M. K. The use of the Minnesota Teacher Atti
tude Inventory in appraising counselor attitudes.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of
Missouri, 1952.
31. Halkides, G. An experimental study of four conditions
necessary for therapeutic change. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Chicago, 1958.
325
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Halpern, H. M. Predictive empathy and the study of
values, J. Consult. Psychol. , 1957, 21^, 104-106.
Harris, R. E. Clinical methods: psychotherapy,
Annu. Rev. Psychol. , 1956, 7_, 121-146.
Heist, P. A. An experiment utilizing group psycho
therapy in a self-analytic procedure for counselors
in training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Univer. of Minnesota, 1956.
Hill, G. E. The selection of school counselors,
Personnel Guidance J.. 1961, 34 ., 355-359.
Hobbs, N. The compleat counselor, Personnel Guidance
J. , 1958,_36_, 594-602.
Holt, R. R., & Luborsky, L. Personality patterns of
psychiatrists. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1958.
Hopke, W. E. Measurement of counselor attitudes,
J. Counsel. Psychol., 1955, 2 , 212-216.
Joslin, L. C., Jr. Knowledge and counseling compe
tence : an investigation of two outcomes of a coun
selor education program. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Univer. of Michigan, 1962.
Kadushin, A. Observing the interview in counselor
training and preparation, Personnel Guidance J.,
1956, 34, 405-408.
Kamm, R, B. A.C.P.A. professional standards committee
studies of graduate student selection and admis
sion, Personnel Guidance J. , 1954, 32^, 362-366.
Karraker, W. J. Desirable counselor attitudes,
Occupations, 1951, 29, 605-608.
Kelly, F. L., & Fiske, R. W. The prediction of suc
cess in the VA training program in clinical
psychology, Amer. Psychologist, 1950, 5,, 395-406.
326
44. Kemp, G. G. Influence of dogmatism on the training
of counselors, J. counsel. Psychol. , 1962, 9.,
155-157.
45. Kreidt, P. H. Vocational interests of psychologists,
J. appl. Psychol.. 1949, 33, 482-488.
46. Maslow, A. H. Toward a psychology of being. New
Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962.
47. McClary, G. 0. Reaction--American school counselor
association. Counselor Education--A Progress
Report on Standards. American Personnel and Guid
ance Association, April, 1962, 8-9.
48. McCully, C. H. The school counselor: strategy for
professionalization, Personnel Guidance J.. 1962,
40, 681-689.
49. Michael, J., & Meyerson, L. A behavioral approach
to counseling and guidance, Harvard Educ. Rev..
1962, 32, 382-402.
50. Miller, C. H. How to prepare the counselor for his
job? School Life, 1961, 44, 13-15.
51. Munger, P. F ., & Johnson, C. A. Changes in attitudes
associated with an N.D.E.A. guidance institute,
Personnel Guidance J. , I960, 3J3, 751-753.
52. Munger, P. F ., ffyers, R. A., & Brown, D. F. Guidance
institutes and the persistence of attitudes: A
progress report, Personnel Guidance J., 1963, 41,
415-419.
53. Nelson, E. Attitudes: I. Their nature and develop
ment, J. gen. Psychol. , 1939, 21_, 367-399.
54. Nobel, J. L., & Mathewson, R. H. Evaluating a program
of counselor training through group conferences,
Personnel Guidance J. . 1956, 34 ^ , 285-288.
55. Osgood, C. L., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The
measurement of meaning. Urbana: Univer. of Illi
nois Press, 1957.
327
56. Pepinsky, H. B., & Pepinsky, P. Counseling theory
and practice. New York: The Ronald Press Company,
1954.
57. Pierson, G. A. Position paper--administrative rela
tionships. Counselor Education--a progress report
on Standards. American Personnel and Guidance
Association, April, 1962, 61-66.
58. Rhine, R, J. A concept formation approach to atti
tude acquisition. Psychol. Rev. , 1958, 65_, 362-
370.
59. Rocky Mountain Regional--A.C.E.S. Program summary
report: Section I. Philosophy and objectives.
Salt Lake City, Utah, October 26-27, 1962.
(Mimeographed.)
60. Rogers, C. Client-centered therapy. Boston: Hough
ton Mifflin Company, 1951.
61. Rogers, C. The characteristics of a helping relation
ship. Personnel Guidance J. , 1958, 37 ., 6-15.
62. Rogers, C. The place of the person in the new world
of the behavioral sciences. Personnel guidance J.,
1961, 34, 442-451.
63. Rogers, C. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1961.
64. Rogers, C. The interpersonal relationship: The core
of guidance. Harvard Educ. Rev. , 1962, 32^, 416-
429.
65. Ryans, D. G. A study of criterion data. Educ.
psychol. Me as., 1952, 1 2 . , 333-344.
66. Shear, B. E. Reaction— state supervisor. Counselor
Education--A Progress Report on Standards. Amer
ican Personnel and Guidance Association, April,
1962, 9-11.
328
67. Sheerer, E. T. An analysis of the relationship
between acceptance of and respect for self and
acceptance of and respect for others in ten coun
seling cases. J. consult. Psychol.. 1949, 1 3 . ,
169-175.
68. Shoben, J. E., Jr. Personal responsibility, deter
minism, and the burden of understanding. Person
nel Guidance J.. 1961, 34, 5-10.
69. Skinner, B. F. Walden two. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1948.
70. Slomowitz, M. A comparison of personality changes
and content achievement gains occurring in two
modes of instruction. Unpublished doctoral disser
tation, New York Univer., 1955.
71. Snyder, W. U. The personality of clinical students.
J. counsel. Psychol. , 1955, 47-52.
72. Stewart, C. C. Attitude change following counseling
seminar. Personnel Guidance J. . 1958, 37., 273-
275.
73. Thompson, F. W. The relationship of individual dif
ferences and counseling technique to the effective
ness of vocational counseling. Unpublished doc
toral dissertation, Univer. of Southern California,
1956.
74. Tyler, L. E. The work of the counselor. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1961.
75. Tyler, L. E. The N.D.E.A. counseling and guidance
training institute program: A report of the first
fifty institutes. U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 0E-
25011, Bulletin, 1960, no. 31.
76. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Office of Education, The national defense counsel
ing and guidance training institutes program:
Policies and procedures NDEA title V (B): No. 1, A
329
manual for participating institutions--second
revision--June, 1962.
77. Van Kamm, A. Counseling from the viewpoint of exis
tential psychology. Harvard Educ. Rev.. 1962, 32,
403-415.
78. Vordenborg, W. The impact of personal philosophies
on counseling. Personnel Guidance J., 1952-53,
31, 439-440.
79. Webb, A. P., & Harris, J. T. A semantic differential
study of counselors in an NDEA institute. Person
nel Guidance J., 1963, 42, 260-63.
80. Wellington, A. M., et al. Counselor selection,
education, supervision. State College, Pennsyl
vania: Counselor Education Press, 924 West Beaver
Avenue, 1962.
81. Williamson, E. G. The counselor as technique. Per
sonnel Guidance J., 1962, 41, 108-111.
82. Wrenn, C. G. The selection and education of student
personnel workers. Personnel Guidance J., 1952,
31, 9-14.
83. Wrenn, C. G. The counselor in a changing world.
Washington, D. C.: American Personnel and Guidance
Association, 1962.
84. Wtenn, R. L. Counselor orientation: Theoretical or
situational? J. counsel. Psychol., 1960, 7, 40-
45.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An Experimental Study Of Self-Confrontation In Counseling

PDF

Counselor Rigidity - Dogmatism - Authoritarianism As Variables In Counseling Effectiveness

PDF

The Relationships Of Classroom Climate To Teachers' Knowledge Of Pupils' Sociometric Status, Manifest Anxiety, Ability, Achievement, And Socioeconomic Status

PDF

An Empirical Comparison Of The School And College Ability Tests And The American Council On Education Psychological Examination

PDF

Positional Response Set In The Multiple Choice Examination

PDF

The Relationship Of Creative Thinking Abilities To School Achievement

PDF

An Investigation Of The Relationship Between Counselor Role-Function And Counselee Perception Of Help Received

PDF

The Stability Of The Self-Concept In Junior College Students

PDF

A Comparative Guidance Study: Group Counseling Methods With Selected Underachieving Ninth Grade Students

PDF

The Validity Of The Graduate Record Examinations As Used With English-Speaking Foreign Students

PDF

A Study To Compare The Effectiveness Of Individual And Group Counseling Approaches With Able Underachievers When Counselor Time Is Held Constant

PDF

Upperclassmen As Academic Advisers To Freshmen In An Undergraduate College: An Experiment

PDF

Selection Factors Relating To Success In A Counselor Education Program

PDF

An Analysis Of The Role Of The School Psychologist In The State Of California

PDF

A Comparison Of Students' Evaluation Of Guidance Services Under Varying Plans Of Organization

PDF

An Evaluation Of Orientation Programs In Seven Selected Small Liberal Arts Colleges, Using Student Satisfaction Criteria

PDF

Non-Cognitive Factors Related To Achievement Which Can Be Ascertained From Freshman Autobiographies

PDF

To Attend Or Not To Attend College: Some Factors In The Decision Of Qualified High School Graduates

PDF

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

PDF

'Cost' And 'Utility' In The Prediction Of The Successful Junior College Student

Asset Metadata

Creator Benoit, Robert Bryan (author)

Core Title An Investigation Of Changes In Knowledge And Attitudes Of Counselor-Trainees During The Course Of An Ndea Guidance Institute And Their Relation To Counseling Competence

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Carnes, Earl F. (committee chair), Brown, Charles M. (committee member), Lefever, David Welty (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-357906

Unique identifier UC11359037

Identifier 6503101.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-357906 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6503101.pdf

Dmrecord 357906

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Benoit, Robert Bryan

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