FORCED CHOICE RATING SCALES FOR TEACHER DISCIPLINE

Citation preview

C O P Y R I G H T BY EVA EUNICE GOODENOUGH 1 9 58

FORCED CHOICE RATING SCALES FOR TEACHER DISCIPLINE DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By EVA EUNICE GOODENOUGH, B. 3. in Educ., M. S. The Ohio State University 1951

Approved by t

Adviser

To MY MOTHER AND FATHER

i

832500

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere Appreciation to ay advisor, Dr, Horace B. English, under whose kindly guidance this research was done) to the other members of my reading oondtteei Dr. Robert J. Wherry, whose generous and patient help with the forced choice method and statistical analysis of the results was Invaluable, and Dr. Julian B. Rotter, who gave encouragement and help when they were needed) to Dean Ralph L, Eyaan, of Florida State University, Mr. Ernest Stone, of Jacksonville State Teachers College, Dr. Richard Jaggers, of Florence State Teachers College, Professor S. A. Stromswo Id and Mr. F. H. Brooks, of Troy State Teachers College, Dr. Bernard Poole and Mr. J. W. Broucek, of Georgia Teachers College, Mr. Dan Anderson, County Superintendent of Schools in FsoawMa County, Florida, the principals and teachers of Escambia County schools, and the many other classroom teachers whose co­ operation made this work possible) and to my family, whose encourage­ ment and help have been unfailing.

li

TABLE OF CONTDtTS Page LIST OF TABLES..............................................

!▼

LIST OF GRAPHS..............................................

t1

LIST OF SCORING K E Y S ........................................

Yii

MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL IN APPENDIX I I ......................... Till Chapter I.

Discussion of Literature and Statement of Problem

...

1

II.

P r o c e d u r e ..........................................

7

III.

He s u i t e ............................................

24

IV.

Interpretation and Conclusions .......................

35

V.

Suraoary............................................

4®

APPENDIX It

T a b l e s ........................................

60

APPEVDIX lit Instructions,Rating Scales, and Scoring Keys . . .

169

iii

LIST OF TABLES Table I

Page N '# for Ratings Obtained from Teachers Attending Sumer S c h o o l # .....................................

II

Total N's for Rating# Obtained from Teacher#

III

S o m r y of Valid!ty Coefficient# for Sample#

IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI

.... B

. . .

13 13 33

Illustrative Computation of Discrimination and Preference Indies# ..............................

60

Number of Teacher# in Bsoanbia County Public

61

Schools

Item# Omitted by More Than 10% of Total Number of R a t e r s ..........................................

62

Item# With Low DI's (80 or Less) and Low PI'# (Less Than 2 0 0 ) ........................................

69

Items With Low DI's (80 or Less) and High Pi’s (200 or O v e r ) ........................................

74

Item# With High DI's (Over 125) and High Pi's (Over 2 0 0 ) ............................................

79

Items With High Dl'e (Over 125) and Low PI'# (Under 200)

88

Items With Discrimination Indices Between 80 and 125

93

XII

Score and Discipline Rating# for Primary Teachers . .

106

XIII

Scores and Discipline Ratings for Intermediate Grade T e a c h e r s ........................................

124

Scores and Discipline Ratings for Junior High School Teachers . . . .

133

Sample At

146

XIV XV XVI

Rating Sheets for Primary Teachers . . . .

Sample At Rating Sheets for Intermediate Grade T e a c h e r s ........................................ iv

147

LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII

Page Sample As Rating Sheets for Junior High School T e a c h e r s ..........................................

148

Scores on Sample Bt Rating Sheets for Primary Grade T e a c h e r s ..........................................

149

Scores on Sample Bs Rating Sheets for Intermediate Giade T e a c h e r s ....................................

154

Soores on Sample Bt Rating Sheets for Junior High School Tea c h e r s............................ ........

159

Item-Crlterlon Correlations.........................

164

Indices Obtained byItem Analyses for Halo Effect . .

165

v

LIST OF GRAPHS Graph

Page

I

Scores, Grades 1 - 3 ....................................

25

II

Discipline Ratings, Grades 1 - 3 ........................

25

III

Scores, Grades 4—6 .................................

.

26

IV

Discipline Ratings, Grades 4 - 6 ........................

26

V

Scores, Grades 7—9 ....................................

27

VI

Discipline Ratings, Grades 7—9 ........................

27

t1

LIST O F SCORING KET3 Page

I II III IV V VI VII VIII

Original Key for Rating Sheets for Teachers of Primary Grade s .............................................

174.

Original Key for Rating Sheets for Intermediate Grade Teachers...........................................

175

Original Key for Rating Sheets for Junior High School Teachers...........................................

176

Revised Key for P r i m a r y Teachers (Based on Item Analyses) .........................................

177

Revised Key for Intermediate Grade Teachers (Based on Item Analyses)....................................

178

Revised Key for Junior High School Teachers (Based on Item Analyses).....................................

179

Key for Non—Discriminating Choicesi Rating Sheets for Intermediate Grade T e a c h e r s .......................

180

Key for Scoring as if Items Had Been In Pairs t Rating Sheets for Junior HighSchool Teachers ...............

181

vii

MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL IN APPENDIX II Page General Inatructions

......................................

169

Rating S c h e d u l e ..........................................

170

Sheet Tor Rating Teachers of Grades 1 - 3 .............

171

Sheet for Rating Teachers ofGrades A - 6 ...................

172

Sheet for Rating Teachers ofGrades 7-9

173

Till

FORCED CHOICE RATING SCALES FOR TEACHER DISCIPLINE CHAPTER I DISCUSSION OF LITERATURE AND STATOOTT OF PROBLEM1 In all evaluation and prediction procedures the selection of a criterion is a major problem.

This is a particularly difficult task

in teacher evaluation and prediction.

What constitutes good teaching

anyway? Armchair analysts are likely to reply in terms of developing "good oitisenship," "character," or "personality,” or "stimulating independent t h i n k i n g o r some other such vaguely defined activity. Some have stressed method and have extolled the virtues of the use of visual aids, democratic classroom procedures, non-directive methods of teaching, etc. (17, 35, AO, A7, 15)^

Many attempts have been made

to prove the superiority of one method over another, e,g., lecture type vs. discussion classes at the college level.

Some external cri­

terion of teaching, such as students' grades on objective type exami­ nations, has been used.

Results have been conflicting and the

^Sinoe the literature on teacher evaluation and prediction is reviewed periodically in the REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, no attempt will be made to give a comprehensive review of it here. ^Numbers in parentheses refer to material in the bibliography, PP.56-59. 1

criteria used have been criticized freely by the proponents of the methods not favored by the particular investigations. (3, 18, 2A, 25). Other studies have attempted to measure the effects of particular kinds of teacher behavior upon the behavior of children. Thus Anderson, using a behavior sampling method, found that domlnatlve behavior by a nursery school, kindergarten, or elementary school teacher incites domlnatlve behavior In children, while socially Inte­ grative behavior incites socially Integrative behavior (1, 2), and Johnson found that positive, specific, unhurried, encouraging direc­ tions were more likely to be compiled with than negative, general, hurried, and discouraging directions (31). Within the last decade there has been a growing belief that studies of method are less Important than studies of the teacher as a person; that subtle differences In method which make the difference between effeotive and ineffective teaching spring from differences In teacher personality, attitudes, adjustment, and relations with pupils. The (superficially) same method used by different persons gets quite differing results.

The self-same words, spoken in a slightly different

tone or even spoken in the same tone but by a different person, have a different meaning and a different effeot.

Perhaps the insecure person

behaves in a domineering, autocratic manner because he finds It impos­ sible to behave in a socially integrative manner.

It is still true

that men do not gather grapes from thorn trees nor figs from thistles. Differences in method and behavior —

yes, but underlying and basic to

these differences are differences in attitude, interests, and all the many "intervening variables" that go to make up what we refer to as the teacher's personality.

The question becomes not "What constitutes 2

good teaching?" but "What constitutes a good teacher?" Here, too, the armchair analyst has a ready answer.

He as­

cribes to the successful teacher such virtues as patienee, good judg­ ment, intelligence, sincerity, and many other exemplary characteristics. Some, believing that there is safety in numbers and that those being taught might have some worthwhile opinions on this subject, have asked groups of persons, often groups of college or high school pupils, to describe ideal teaahers or teachers whom they like or dislike, or to rank characteristics of a good teacher in order of their importance (30, 49, 50, 55). One of the most frequently used approaches to teacher evalua­ tion has used the technique of obtaining ratings on personality traits thought to be associated with effective teaching.

Usually supervisors,

principals, or critic teachers fill out the rating scales, but some­ times college students, high school pupils, or even elementary school ohlldren have cooperated in this task. Ratings by supervisors, principals, and critic teachers are subject to the usual questionable reliability and distortion due to the halo effect, but they unuoubtedly have some validity.

Supervisors and

principals usually have some voice in the hiring, firing, and promot­ ing of teachers.

For this reason, If for no other, It would be very

difficult or quite impossible to be a successful teacher if one oould not satisfy them to a certain extent. Ratings by pupils may be considered to have validity for in­ dicating their attitudes toward their teachers, provided they have been assured of annonymity.

The average of a class's ratings of their

teacher's "knowledge of subject natter" is probably not a valid 3

measure of that teaaher's actual knowledge, but it nay reveal what the class

about his knowledge.

It might be considered a measure of

the teaoher's prestige or reputation among students. Ratings, then, constitute one criterion of effective teaoher personality.

Sometimes the ratings used for this purpose are on gen­

eral, over-all effectiveness rather than on different traits of person­ ality. Using supervisors' ratings as a criterion, Dodge found aertaln groups of items in a personality inventory differentiated between the best 10% and the worst 10% of teachers in an Air Corps technical school. Similar results were found with student teachers. (19, 20), Leeds used ratings by principals, experts, and elementary school children as the criteria for validating his attitude test, The Teaaher-Pupil Inventory. (16, 39). Another approach to teacher evaluation is to analyse the knowledge, skills, interests, attitudes, etc., thought necessary for effective teaching and then attempt to measure these skills, attitudes, interests, eto., in teachers or prospective teachers. an approach in terms of "mental controls" (9).

Barr calls this

The use of teacher ex­

aminations and certification based upon college credits exemplify the use of such a criterion in teaoher selection.

The Kelley-Perkins test

of knowledge of and attitudes toward child and adolescent behavior il­ lustrates Its use in teacher evaluation. (32). Finally, some investigators have used changes in pupil be­ havior, knowledge, attitudes, and interests as orlterla for teaoher evaluation.

Barr and his co-workers used gain in scores on achieve­

ment tests, measures of attitude, teaoher-pupil relationships, tests A

of ability to organise research Materials and of ability to apply gen­ eralisations, sometimes combining such measures of pupil-change with data from rating scales and measures of knowledge or abilities commonly associated with success in teaching to form a composite criterion.

A

number of measures of intelligence, information, attitudes, interests, etc., were applied to the teachers and a few significant correlations were found. (10, 37 , 38, 44, 45). A study conducted with teachers in the Mathematics Department at Iowa State College, typical of many (often not published) studies, used grades on subsequent mathematics courses and interest in the subject as evidenced by election of further mathematics courses as criteria for effectiveness of teaching (38). This Is more apt to impress the devotee of a particular subject than one Interested In the Integrated growth of the individual. Since the teacher is only one faotor In a complex total situa­ tion affooting such changes in pupil behavior, this is a very diffi­ cult way to measure teaching success and it is perhaps not surprising that the results have not been startling. The usual procedures in teacher selection rely almost entirely upon measures of knowledge (college credits, acceptable performance on teachers' examinations) combined with interviews and reconnendations which consist of general statements about the prospective teacher's oharaoter, personality, or ability, or, in some instances, ratings made by critic teachers, college teachers, or former principals and super­ visors.

Proof that suoh procedures are inadequate is demonstrated by

the number of teachers who each year fall to be reappointed because of having been Judged incompetent and the many more, even among those

5

considered noat promising In our teaoher training institutions, who become disillusioned and unhappy, considering themselves failures. What is needed is some good way of differentiating potentially successful from potentially unsuccessful prospective teachers at the college freshman or sophomore level.

Knowledge and attitudes toward

children and teaching probably change more with experience and train­ ing than do certain other personality characteristics.

Measuring these

more enduring personality traits will probably give more satisfactory results in the prediction of teaching success at the beginning of pro­ fessional training. Certain personality traits are believed to be associated with success in teaching, but we don't know enough about their relative importance nor how to measure them to be able to guide college students intelligently. The greatest single cause for failure to be reappointed among public school teachers Is lack of ability to control children, pop­ ularly called "poor discipline" (28, 41).

Yet we do not know enough

about the personality traits associated with ability to control chil­ dren to be able to predict which young people will be successful in this. This study is an attempt to discover the personality traits of teachers associated with the ability to control elementary and Junior high school children in a classroom situation.

The criterion of suc­

cess used was teachers' anonymous ratings of their colleagues.

The

method chosen to determine the personality traits associated with the criterion was the experimental construction of a foroed choice rating schedule. 6

CHAPTER II PROCEDURE The decision to use teachers' ratings or their colleagues rather than ratings by principals or supervisors was influenced by two factors ~

availability and the belief that peer—ratings are more ac­

curate than ratings by superiors.

Teachers are usually in closer con­

tact with their fellow-teachers than principals and supervisors are and a teacher is less likely to try to "put his best foot forward" when with other teachers than when with superiors.

For these reasons

it was thought that teachers might be in a better position than prin­ cipals and supervisors to know other teachers as they really are. The forced choice rating technique was selected because it was believed to be the most promising rating method.

The rationale

underlying the forced choice technique is the hypothesis that when a rater is forced to choose between two equally complimentary or deroga­ tory descriptions, only one of which differentiates ratees who are superior from those who are Inferior In some particular activity, his choice will have significance in an over-all rating of effectiveness in that activity.

An attempt Is made to pair descriptive words or

phrases which are equal in preference value (that is, those which raters axe equally likely to select as applicable to ratees) but dif­ fer in discrimination value (or ability to differentiate those who are effective from those who are ineffective in the activity being 7

studied).

Ideally, one or the pair should have high discrimination

value and the other none at all* In the forced choice form as used by the Army items are ar­ ranged in groups of four or tetrads.

Each tetrad is composed of two

pairs of items approximately equal in preference value but differing greatly in discrimination value.

One pair in each tetrad has high

preference value and the other has low preference value.

The tetrad,

then, includes 1.

One item with high preference value and low discrimination

2.

One item with high preference value and high discrimina­

value *

tion value. 3.

One item with low preference value and low discrimination

A.

One item with low preference value and high discrimina­

value,

tion value, The rater is asked to choose the Item in each tetrad which is most characteristic of the ratee and the one which is least characteristic of him. Preference and discrimination indices are determined empiri­ cally.

The forced choice rating form is one of the few rating devices

for which items are experimentally selected.

This fact, in addition

to the acceptance of the rationale underlying its construction, would seem to suggest that forced choice ratings would have greater validity than the traditional rating forms. gestion.

Research has confirmed this sug­

The Army found the forced choice form superior to any other

of the many rating forms they tried. 8

Both validity, as measured by

correlations with o w r si 1 ratings of effectiveness, and discrimina­ tion, as indicated by Increased spread of ratings and lessened tendency for piling up of scores at the high end of the scale, were greatest when the forced choice technique was used. (43)* However, recently an article by Travers criticising the valid­ ity and rationale of the forced choice technique appeared in the PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN (53).

Some of Travers criticisms appear to

have little relevance to the question of the relative validity and dis­ crimination value of foroed choice and conventional rating forms. The suggestions that each tetrad in the forced ahoiee schedule include only items which differ in frequency of occurrence or only items which differ in degree and that the directions oonvey the idea of comparing the ratee *s relatl ye standing in his group In regard to frequency of occurrence of behavior rather than comparing absolute frequencies of occurrence are pleas for care in the constniotlon of the rating forms.

The fact that it is possible for an unscrupulous

rater to falsify the ratings merely points out the need for coopera­ tion in any program of rating.

The forced choice form is admittedly

not fool-proof. While it would be possible, as Travers suggests, to score graphic rating scales as one scores forced choice scales if the items on the graphic scales were arranged in groups of four and the rater followed instructions not to nark any two scales in a single group at the same point, the usual forced choice form would certainly be more convenient to construct, administer, and score.

And it is incorreot

to say that a graphic rating scale set up in this way would eliminate the necessity for forcing a choice. 9

The usual forced choice form

requires two choices for «toh tetrad —

the Item most characteristics

and the one least characteristic of the Individual being rated.

The

graphic form Travers proposes would require an additional choice, namely, which of the two intermediate items Is more

characteristic of

the individual rated? The graphic comparison of distributions of ratings on the conventional and on the forced choice rating scales shows a larger num­ ber of ratings at the lower end of the scale and a smaller number at the upper end for the forced oholoe than for the conventional type scale.

As Taylor and Wherry state (52), "While the forced-choice

technique cannot be said to have solved the problems of leniency and bias,

a step in that direction appears to have been taken.*3 The superior validity of the single over-all rating on a

twenty-point scale when preceded by a series of specific ratings can hardly be considered an argument for the superiority of the traditional type of rating scale. It is true that validation studies of the forced choice rat­ ing scales have used other ratings as criterion measures.

Although

Travers criticises this procedure he offers no suggestions for better criteria.

The difficulty of obtaining satisfactory criteria was dis­

cussed in Chapter I with reference to teaching and teacher personality* The first step in the construction of a forced choice rat­ ing scale is the collection of descriptive items for which preference

^Evidently Travers did not take the word relati valv in the phrase "relatively free from the usual pile-up at the top of the scale" quite as literally as he took the words and always in the sample items "a go—getter who always does a good Job" and "cool under all circumstances .* 10

and discrimination Indices may b# determined.

In order to insure inclu­

sion of relevant items couched in terms familiar to the raters, de­ scriptive words and phrases are frequently selected from essays (de­ scribing people who are good and those who are poor in the particular activity being studied) written by persons comparable to those who will eventually be asked to use the rating forms. In this study, students in classes in educational psychology at the Ohio State University were asked to write papers describing a very effective and a very ineffective teacher from the standpoint of discipline or oontrol of children in the classroom.

Some items were

selected from these essays, but it was found necessary to supplement these with many from other sources (reading, conversation, and personal experiences).

Most of the essays by the students contained the same or

similar desoriptive words or phrases, very few of which had not already been listed for tentative use. A list of 296 descriptive words and phrases was drawn up, alphabetised, and printed in rating schedule form.

The following direc­

tions for rating were printed on the form* Choose some elementary or junior high school teacher (not yourself) with whose classroom work you are familiar and indicate the extent to which each item in the list be­ low describes that teacher. 1 2 3 A 5

If if if if if

it it it it it

ENCIRCLE does not describe the teacher at all is a poor description but might occasionally apply is somewhat descriptive but doesn't fit well is a fairly good description or might often apply describes the teacher 'to a t*

At the end of the schedule were blanks for indicating what grade or grades the teacher being rated taught and in which third of a

11

representative group of thirty teachers of the seme or similar grades he or she would rank as to classroom discipline or control of children These rating forms were taken to principals of public elemen­ tary schools in Birmingham, Alabama, with the request that they be dis­ tributed to teachers, filled out, collected, and returned to the writer. About 300 schedules were distributed in this manner and 120 were 00mpleted and returned. Inspection of the returned schedules showed that very few teachers had rated one whom they placed in the middle third in dis­ cipline and only two had rated a teacher considered to be in the lowest third. Instructions were accordingly modified so that each teacher was asked to fill out two rating schedules, rating one teacher whom he considered very good and one whom he considered very poor in classroom relations with pupils from the standpoint of discipline. A dittoed copy of the modified instructions (under the title "General Instructions") was stapled to each two rating scales and these forms ware given to professors at teacher training institutions for distribution to public school teachers attending sumrter school classes during the summer of 1950.

Dean R. L. Ryman, of the College of

Education at Florida State University, Mr. Ernest Stone,5 mt Jacksonville State Teachers College (Jacksonville, Ala.), and Dr. Richard Jaggers, at Florence State Teachers College (Florence, Ala.), cooperated in this work.

4A copy of this schedule is included in the appendix. Sprincipal of Jacksonville High School. 12

In this manner, 203 usable rating schedules were obtained,

A

slightly larger number had to be discarded because of failure to follow instructions.

Many of those used were incompletely filled out. All

schedules that indicated the proper grade level and gave an over-all rating on discipline in the highest or lowest 1/3 were used, regardless of other omissions. Since it was hypothesized that the personality characteristics making for effectiveness in discipline at one grade level might differ from those associated with effectiveness in discipline at another grade level, it was decided to analyze results separately for ratings of pri­ mary, Intermediate grade, and Junior high school teachers.

In oases in

which a teaoher being rated taught a combination of grades overlapping more than one division, e.g., a teacher of grades 3 and A» results were recorded for both grade levels taught.

(Wo teacher rated taught a

combination that overlapped all three levels.) The numbers of ratings for each grade level and each of the two levels of effectiveness in discipline were as shown In Table I. TABLE I N 13 FOR RATINGS OBTAINED FROM TEACHERS ATTENDING SUMMER SCHOOLS Lowest 1/3

Highest 1/3

Total

Grades 1-3

21-26

22-31

A3-57

Grades A-6

31-35

10-47

71-82

Grades 7-9

26-32

26^37

52-69

13

A range rather than a single number Is given In eaoh cell because some Items had a greater tendency to be omitted than others. Preference and discrimination indices based upon such small samples are not very stabilised.

This fact was revealed by a compari­

son of indices based upon ratings of intermediate grade teachers at­ tending Jacksonville State Teaohers College (N ■» 16-22 for eaoh cell) with those based upon all the ratings of Intermediate grade teaohers (N'b - 31-35 and 40-47). New samples were, therefore, added to those already obtained. Teachers enrolled in Saturday and afternoon classes offered by Troy State Teachers College (Troy,Ala.)

and Georgia Teachers College

(Collegeboro, Ga.) were asked to cooperate by filling out rating schedules.

Professor S. A. Strorasvold and Mr. F. H. Brooks, from Troy

State Teachers College, and Dr. Bernard Poole and Mr. J. W. Broucek,& from Georgia Teachers College, helped by distributing schedules to their classes, collecting them after their completion, and returning them to the writer. With the addition of these schedules, the numbers of ratings for the various levels increased to those shown in Table II.

^Those sent by Mr. Broucek arrived too late to be included in the samples used. 14

TABLE II TOTAL IMS FOR RATINGS OBTAINED FROM TEACHERS Lowest 1/3

Highest l/3

Total

Grades 1-3

39-49

30-46

69-95

Gzades 4-6

34-52

52-68

86-120

Grades 7-9

26^40

31-51

57-91

The adequacy of the size of the enlarged samples was tested by comparing discrimination and preference indices based upon the original sample with those based upon the enlarged sample for every fifth item for the ratings of intermediate grade teaohers.

The median difference

between the 59 pairs of preference indices was 5.9 points and over 75^ of thedifferences were leas than 11 points. was 36

The

largest difference

points.The median difference between the paired discrimination

indices was 6.8 points and over 75^ of the differences were less than 13 points.

The largest difference was 30 points.

It was concluded that samples based upon N's of 71-82 were sufficiently large for the discrimination and preference indices to be fairly well stabilized.

Since items omitted by more than 105& of the

total number of schedules filled out for a given grade level were not used, none of the saaples used had a total N of less than 82. Items omitted by more than 10% of the raters were discarded in order to eliminate ambiguous terms and those unfamiliar to the

15

raters.

"Naive," "apathetic," and "meticulous* were some that were

eliminated in this

way

.7

It will be remembered that the raters were asked to indicate the degree to which each item constituted a good description of the teacher being rated by encircling a number from 1 through 5.

These

numbers were assigned arbitrary weights of 0—4 respectively and a pref­ erence index was determined for each item fay adding the products of the weights times the frequencies with which the corresponding numbers were encircled on the schedules and dividing this sum fay the total number responding to the item. to eliminate decimals.

This quotient was multiplied by 1O0 in order A high preference index (or PI), then, indi­

cates that the item was one frequently chosen as very applicable to the teachers being rated, while a low preference index indicates that it was Judged to have little applicability to most of those rated. The discrimination index (or DI) is the sum of the differ­ ences (disregarding their direction) between the percentages of those given an over-all rating in the highest third and those given an over­ all rating in the lowest third for each number indicating degree of applicability. Table IV in the appendix illustrates the computation of dis­ crimination and preference indices. Discrimination and preference indices were computed for each item at each of the three grade levels.

Differences between the

indices for the different grade levels justified the assumption that

?A complete list of the items marked by less than 10JI of the raters as well as a list of discrimination and preference Indices ob­ tained is contained in the appendix. 16

personality characteristics associated with effectiveness in discipline differ with the grade level taught.

For exa^»le, the item "gentle" had

a DI of 164 and a PI of 231 for primary teachers and a DI of 89 and a PI of 252 for junior high school teachers, while "energetic” had Pi's of 242 and 281 and DI's of 152 and 80, respectively, for the prieary and Junior high school levels.

(These are extreme oases.

Most of the

indices differed by smaller amounts.) In this study, low DI's were defined as those of 80 or less and high DI's as those of 125 or sore.

Items with DI's between 80 and

125 were discarded. Preference indices were considered equal if they differed from each other by no more than 5 points.

The Pi's for those selected as

low in preference value were under 200 and PI1s for those high In preference value were over 200. An attempt was made to select pairs of items which were not only equal In PI and differing greatly in DI, but which seemed to the writer to be as nearly equally complimentary or derogatory as possible. In spite of these efforts, in many of the tetrads selected for the final rating forms it seemed obvious which items discriminate.

This

is unfortunate, since one of the advantages of the forced choice technique supposedly lies in the difficulty of controlling the final score through judicious choice of iteoui.

It would be better if the

rater didn't know which is the differentiating item in eaah pair. The difficulty is duo to the fact that equally complimentary or derogatory terms tended to have similar DI's.

This may be attri­

buted in part to the halo effect and in part to a real association be­ tween desirability of traits and ability to control children. 17

Staugas and McQuitty found this same difficulty In their con­ struction of a forosd oholcs rating soala for dormitory oounsslors (51).

They met it by selecting pairs of items which differed in DI

from 15 to 30 units and differed 10 points or less in PI. As has already been stated, the PI range for the pairs used in this study was only 5 points and no pair selected had a DI difference less than 125 minus 80, or 45 points.

That is, the paired items in

the scales used in this study were slightly more similar in preference value and a great deal more dissimilar in discrimination value than the pairs used fay Staugas and McQuitty, Twenty tetrads were selected for the final rating form for the intermediate grade teachers.

The rating forms for the other two grade

levels contained twenty-five tetrads each. The items selected were mimeographed in rating schedule form for the cross-validation.

At the beginning of each rating schedule was

a blank for indicating the grade or grades taught by the teacher being rated and at the end was a form for giving an over-all rating on effec­ tiveness of classroom control of children fay indicating in which fifth of a representative group of teachers of the same or similar grades the ratee would rank. All ratings were to be completely anonymous for both rater and ratee.

This meant that no measure of the reliability of the criterion

ratings oould be obtained.

Single ratings made by the same persons

filling out the forced choice forms constitute a criterion which is un­ doubtedly more than usually unreliable and subject to distortion fay the halo effect and bias.

It was believed, however, that better cooperation

18

and a more representative sample or taachar raters could be obtained If complete anonymity were assured.8 Teachers in the public schools in Escambia County, Florida, were used in the cross-validation. The original plan was to visit each of the white elementary and Junior high schools in the county, and, after securing cooperation from the principal, to explain the project to the teachers in a group meeting and request them to fill out the forms.

This was

tobe done

during the two week period from June 4 to June 15, 1951. During this period the teachers were attending school for the purpose of putting things away for the summer vacation, filling out records and and planning the work of the following year.

reports,

Vacation for the children

had already begun. It was found impossible to get to all the schools in the limited time available.

Only twenty-seven of the thirty-eight white

elementary and Junior high schools were used.

Of the eleven schools

omitted, three were special schools for crippled children, spastlcs, and delinquents.

Four of the remaining eight were very small schools

with less than four teachers

apiece.^

None of the principals refused to allow the teachers to be asked to fill out the forms.

Most of them were very cooperative about

®Dr. Orleans Informs me in a private consrunlcation that his attempt to construct a foroed choice measure for rating teacher effec­ tiveness failed beoause of Inability to secure cooperation from teachers in rating their colleagues. ?The number of teachers in each school used as well as the number teaching in each school omitted is summarised in Table V in the appendix. 19

calling the teachers together or allowing the writer to talk to them at some time when they were already assembled. However, one Junior high school principal announced to the teachers in his school that any who had nothing else to do night meet In the library with a lady who wanted to talk to them about something and another told the teachers a lady who was working on a Ph D was there and any who wanted to help her were asked to meet in a certain room. Between 60 and 65$ of the teachers responded to these appeals in each of the two schools. In some instances a few of the teachers had already left to attend summer school.

One school was reached at an inopportune tine

when over half the teachers were out to lunch, at home because of ill­ ness, or away on errands. present.

In another only 67% of the teachers were

The percentage of those present In the other schools varied

from 75 to 100. Each teacher was asked to fill out three rating forms, rating one teacher whom he considered very effective, one whom he considered very ineffective, and one who came between the two extremes in class­ room relations with children from the standpoint of discipline.

An at­

tempt was made to standardize the concept of "classroom relations with children from the standpoint of discipline” by describing the effective teacher as being not neoessarily the strictest teacher nor the one whose classroom is quietest, but one in whose classroom children are coopera­ tive and orderly in behavior.

The ineffective teacher was described as

one in whose classroom children are rude, mischievous, disorderly, and unnecessarily noisy. Each teacher was given three forms for each of the three grade 20

levels and allowed to eeleot forme for any grade levels necessary for rating the three teachers chosen.

It was explained that some teachers

might wish to rate three teachers at a single grade level while others might choose one teacher from each of the three grade levels•

There­

fore, although nine forms were given to each teacher, It was expeoted that only three would be filled out and six would be returned blank. Principals who taught classes were asked to fill out the forms with the other teachers.

Those whose work did not include classroom

teaching were not asked to do so.

Librarians, although they were

listed as teachers in several of the larger schools, were not asked to fill out the forms. A few of the teachers said they were unable to fill out the rating schedules because they didn't know any teachers well enough to rate them or because they didn't know any Ineffective teachers. In cases where only one or two schedules were filled out by a teacher, these forms were accepted and used.

However, if a teacher

rated two or more teachers at the same level of effectiveness in dis­ cipline and none at another level, his papers were accepted at the time but later discarded.

It was thought justifiable to exclude those who

knew only good or only poor teachers because they might be expected to be different in other respects, too, from those whose experiences were broad enough to Include acquaintance with both effective and ineffec­ tive teachers. In all, 934 forms were filled out and returned to the writer. Some of these had to be discarded for one or more of the following reasons!

Some teachers used rating sheets for the wrong grade levels —

e.g., a teacher of the fifth grade was rated on a form for rating 21

primary teaahers. being ratad taught. the form.

So m

teachers failed to state what grade the taaehar

Soma omitted the criterion rating at the and of

Soma, as atated abora, rated two or more teachera at the

same level of affactivanaaa in dlaciplina.

Soma omitted oholoaa in

the forced choice ratings. If only two ltema (two choice a from a aIngle tetrad or one choice from eaoh of two tetrada) or leaa were omitted in an otherwiae satisfactory paper, the aohedule waa used. Papera with three or more items omitted were discarded. Eight hundred fifty-eight schedules were retained —

390 rat­

ing primary teachers and 234. each for the other two grade levels. In scoring the forced choice rating scale, each choice of a discriminating item gives a score of one point.

The direetion of the

discrimination determines whether this point is positive or negative. For example, in the tetrad^0 earnest faultfinding neat nervous the two discriminating items are earnest and faultfinding.

Choice of

earnest as most like the ratee gives a score of plus If if chosen as least like the ratee, the score is minus 1.

If faultfiprfipg is ohosen

as most like the ratee, the score for this choice is minus If if ohosen as least like the ratee, the score is plus 1. tetrad may vary from plus two to minus two.

The score for eaoh

Scores for the tetrads are

added algebraically to determine the total score on the form. ▲ system of prorating was used for determining the total score ^®Tetrad $ in the Scale for Rating Teachers of Grades 7-9. 22

in oaaas where on* or two ohoieas war* omitted.

This system, modeled

after the one used in acoring the Rottar Inoosplat* Santanoaa Blank (ii.6) , oonaiata of multiplying tha total, aeora without tha omittad items

by tha quotient of tha total possible acora divided by tha total pos­ sible score minus the number of omissions*

23

CHAPTER III RESULTS Pearson r's for the rating seal* scores and criterion rating* were .814 for the 390 rating soales for primary grade teachers, .74.0 for the 234 scales for intermediate grade teachers, and .758 for the 234 for junior high school teachers. Graphs 1-6 (pp. 25-27) show the distributions of the foroed choice scale scores and of the criterion ratings. Examination of the graphical representations of the criterion ratings shows that in all oases the largest number of ratings obtained were for teachers considered to be in the highest fifth in discipline. The ratings for the middle fifth and the lowest fifth oontaln the second and third largest numbers, respectively. If the distributions had been normal, each fifth would have contained the same number of ratees, of course. The departure from normality is probably due partly to the instructions (which directed the raters to rate one teacher who was considered very good, one who was considered very poor, and one who cams between the two extremes in ability to control chil­ dren) and partly to greater reluctanoe to give low ratings than to give high ratings.

Piling up of re tings at either end or at both ends of

the distribution would have a tendency to make the validity ooeffioients higher than those which would have been obtained had the ratings been normally distributed.

On the other band, the large number of ratings 24

Graph It

r

Scores, Grtd«a 1—3

.614

C-~-

II I

-50

-30

-40

(3)

(24)

-20 (23)

Graph 2 s

(66)

(31)

-10 (24)

0 (24) (31)

*10

I

I_____ ____

*20

*30

(48)

(56)

*40 (100)

*50 (57)

Discipli.ua Ratings, Grades 1-3

(99)

Lowest 1/5

(59)

(135) Highest 1/5

25

Graph 3 I Score a, Grad*a 4-6 740

-40

-30 (3)

-20 (22)

Graph 4s

(46)

-10 (32)

0 (28)

4-10 (24)

+20

(37)

+30 (45)

+40 (43)

Diaolpllna Ratings, Grades 4-6

(37)

(56)

Lowest 1/5

(36)

(59) Highest 1/5

26

Graph 5 1

r

-4,0

-50

(8)

.758

-30 (12)

-20 (17)

Graph 6t

(38)

Scores, Grades 7 - 9

-10 (16)

0 (13)

+10 (15)

+20 (21)

*30 (43)

+4,0 (60)

+50 (29)

Discipline Ratings, Grades 7-9

(34)

(56)

Lowest 1/5

(43)

(63) Highest 1/5

27

of teachers Judged to b« In the middle third would tend to offeet this spurious lncree.ee in validity.

Probably the validity coefficients are

raised some tat not very much by the departure from normality of the criterion ratings.

It Is Interesting to note that the highest validity

coefficient (.814) urns obtained for the soores corresponding to the ratings which showed the greatest departure from a normal distribution. Another interesting fact is that the distributions of soores on the forced choice rating scales show some resemblance to the cor­ responding distributions of criterion ratings.

The most extremely

skewed distribution of scores is for the ratings of primary teachers and It 1s the distribution of the criterion ratings for the primary teachers that shows the greatest deviation from normality.

All the dis­

tributions of rating soale scores, like all the distributions of cri­ terion ratings, are negatively skewed. Reliability coefficients were determined by the split-half method.

After being stepped up by the Spearman—Brown formula, the r ’s

were .971 for the soale for primary teachers, .973 for the one for intermediate grade teachers, and .960 for that for junior high school teachers* For purposes of Item analysis and cross-validation, two random samples of 100 eaoh were selected from the schedules for each of the three grade levels.

A table of random numbers was used in the selec­

tion of these samples, which will hereafter be oalled Samples A and B. An item criterion analysis was done for each item on Sample A for primary grade teachers.

Pearson r's for the soores on eaoh

tetrad (group of four items) correlated with the criterion ratings

28

varied from .512 to ,727. inclusive.

The middle 52Jt ware between *629 end .668,

The median r was .655.

Item alternative analyses baaed upon Samples A were done for all items in eaoh schedule.

The number of persons rated in the highest

2/5 in dlsoipline for whom a particular alternative in a tetrad was selected as most oharaateristic minus the number in the lowest 2/5 for whom that alternative was selected was divided by the total number of selections of the alternative in order to provide a rough Index of the discrimination value of the alternative.

For exaiqple, in tetrad 1 of

the soale for rating junior high school teachers, item A, good lTlfllTFi was chosen as most like 26 teaohers who were rated in the highest 1/5 in discipline, 12 teachers rated in the second l/5, 13 rated in the middle 1/5, none in the next to lowest 1/5, and 3 in the lowest 1/5. This makes a total of 54 choices of this item as most like the teacher being rated.

The index for this item is 26 plus 12 minus 3 (or 35)

divided by 54, or plus 35/54.

The highest positive index for eaoh

tetrad indicated the item which was given a weight of ylue one in the revised soorlng key, while the highest negative index pointed out the one to be given a weight of

-

Indices which differed from

eaoh other by .1 or less were considered equal so that in a number of instanoes two choices were given the same soorlng weight.IT

A similar

^flose exceptions were made to this procedure; for example, in tetrad 15 in the soale for junior high school teaohers alternative B had an Index of -.73 while alternative D had an index of —1. How­ ever, alternative B was selected by 16 out of 100 raters while alter­ native D was selected by only 3. Both B and 0 were given weights of alnu« one.

In tetrad 2 in the soale for primary teaohers alternatives A and C were by mistake given equal weight even though their indices dif­ fered by more than .1. This error scarcely affects the results. 29

procedure was used in selecting weightings for tha Items ohosen as least like the ratees. Revision of the soorlng keys based upon alternative analyses resulted In changes Involving the soorlng of only 7 of the 25 tetrads in the soale for prleary teaohers and only 9 of the 25 tetrads In the scale for Junior high school teaohers.

Changes In the key for soorlng

the soale for Intermediate grade teaohers ware more extensive.

For only

5 of the 20 tetrads in this soale was the soorlng unahanged. The papers in the three Saaples B were used In the crossvalidation based upon the soores obtained with the revised keys.

Valid­

ity coefficients obtained were .853 for the primary grade schedules, .769 for the intermediate grade schedules, and .783 for the junior high school schedules. For purposes of oonparlson, validity coefficients based upon the scores obtained with the old keys were confuted for each Sample B. These were found to be .839, .754* and .756 for the primary, Inter­ mediate grade, and junior high school schedules, respectively.

Chang­

ing the soorlng keys, then, raised the validities of these samples of 100 papers by .014, .015, and .027. The revised soorlng keys were somewhat more unwieldy than the old ones, because over half the changes made consisted of giving equal weight to two alternatives.

Besides making the soorlng more burden­

some, giving equal weight to each of the complimentary or derogatory items has the effect of eliminating the forced choice nature of the rating soales, allowing more opportunity for the operation of bias and the halo effect.

It is quite possible that the small Increases in

30

validity obtained war* entirely due to tha greater effectiveness of bias and tha halo whan tha revised keys vara uaad. At laaat two othar applanations of the Inereeses In validity when tha revised keys ware uaad are possible.

Choosing from a group of

four Items the one moat oharaoterlstlo and the one least characteristic of the ratee la almost certainly not psychologically the same task as judging tha applicability to tha rates of these same items whan they are imbedded in an alphabetically arranged list of 296 descriptive words or phrases.

Tha raters whose Judgments were used In determining the

original keys ware not given tha same task as was given those whose judgments determined tha revised keys. arrangement may Influence Judgment.

Item Interaction In the tetrad

Then, too, tha populations from

which the raters ware drawn differed In the two Instances.

It Is pos­

sible that traits actually associated with effectiveness of discipline differed in the parsons rated by the different groups of people. Explanation In terms of increased effectiveness of the halo Is favored fay the fact that some of the items on which the soorlng was re­ vised were actually found to be best by another method of Item alter­ native analysis.

In their construction of forced choice rating forms,

the Army made use of a simple, crude Index for determining the extent to which halo effect might contribute to a high total score. This index consists of the proportion of the total number of complimentary choices that were oontrlbuted fay choices of the discriminating Item.

If as

many as 90% of the complimentary choices were choices of the discrimina­ ting item, the tetrad was discarded as being

one too easily "seen

through.*1 It was considered desirable for the relative proportions of choices of discriminating and non-disorlmlnating complimentary choices 31

to be oloaa to 50% and 50%.

Sinoa each tetrad involved two ohoioee

(most like and leeet like), two lndioes were computed for eaoh. When this index was applied to the choices in the Samples A, i t was found that no item foiled to meet the ir^j'a

criterion for inclusion.

rather lenient

U g h t of the 140 indioea ooaputed were between

.799 and .859, 40 were between .699 and .799, 53 were between .599 and .699, and 39 were less than .60.

(Table XXII in the appendix lists the

indices found for the various Iteas.) The soale for Interne illate grade teaohers was found to be superior to the other two scales by this method of item alternative analysis.

However, it will be recalled that the key for this soale

was the one most extensively changed on the basis of the other method of item analysis and that the soores on it show the lowest correlation with the oriterlon ratings.

This might be considered evidenoe of the

subversive influence of the halo effect.

A larger part of the higher

correlations may reasonably be attributed to the halo effect. Sinoe it has been suggested that scores based upon the "Most Like" or "Least Like" ohoioes alone night be as valid as those based upon both, Samples B were soored in these two ways and validity co­ efficients were ooaputed.

It was found that scores based upon "Least

Likes" alone were less valid, while those based upon "Most Likes" alone were slightly more valid than the total soores. obtained were as follows t Grades 1-3 "Most Likes" alone "Least Likes" alone

.858 .802

Validity coefficients

Grad** 4-6 "Moat Likas" alone "Least Likas" alone

.756 .705

Gradas 7-9 •Most Likes" alone "Least Likas" alone

.757 .716

Mhen the revised key, based upon item alternative analysis, was used and the "Most Like" choices alone were soored, the validity coefficient for the schedules for primary teaohers was .659. Table III summarises the validity data for Samples B. TABLE III SUMMARY OF VALIDITY OOVFICIBfTS FOR SAMPLES B Sohedules for teaohers of grades

1-3

4—6

7-9

.757

Old scoring keys CO i n e

CO

.756

"Least Likes" alone

.802

.705

.716

Total soores

.839

.754

.756

"Most Likes" alone

Revised soorlng keys "Most Likes" alone

.859

Total soores

.853

.769

.783

It will be seen that the most valid soores for this sample of the scales for primary teaohers are obtained when the revised soorlng key is used

only the "Most Like" choices are scored.

The scales

for intermediate grade and junior high sohool teaohers were not soored in this manner, but the coefficients which were obtained suggest that if they had been, slightly higher correlations would have been obtained. 33

The small increases In validity resulting from the scoring of the "Most Like" ohoioes alone do not seem to oompensate for the loss in reliability wfaioh would result from the use of soores based upon only half the ohoioes; nor does it seem Justifiable to use the revised keys when ease of sooring and probable operation of bias and halo effeot are taken into consideration.

34

CHAPTER IT INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS The use of a criterion consisting of singls ratings nads by the sans parsons who fillsd out the forced choice rating f ont has the confusing affect of inextricably mingling bias and halo effect with the true association of personality traits and effectiveness of discipline. The high correlations with the criterion ratings that were obtained (.814, *740, and .758) nay be attributed partly to a real association between personality traits and effectiveness in discipline, partly to bias on the part of the rater, and partly to the halo effect. The halo effect, or tendency to Judge a person on each trait in accordance with a general impression of him as a whole, would cause the oriterion ratings to correlate positively with the soores on each item, nalrtng the validity coefficient for the soale as a whole positive and high. high.

It would also cause the item interoorrelations to be fairly

Inspection of the item criterion correlations on the soale for

rating primary teaohers (range equals .512-.727, median equals .655) and comparison with the validity coefficient for the scale as a whole (.814) indicate that this condition obtains.

The average lnteroorrela-

tlon, as estimated by Kurts's formula (36), is .626. The fact that the score for each item shows a substantial cor­ relation with the criterion is not necessarily indicative of halo ef­ fect.

If there were a real association between the personality traits 35

Involved and effectiveness in discipline, tha item—oriterion oorrelation* would ba positive, too. isolate the halo effect.

This is what makes It impossible to

There would ba lass evidence for its opera­

tion, however, if item Intercorrelations oould be assumed to be low. If itero-criterion correlations were low (.20-.4.0, for example) and soale—criterion correlations high (.60 or above) one might have more confidence in the soale as a measure of traits actually associated with effectiveness in discipline. It may be recalled that when an item alternative analysis was made in order to get an index of the extent to which halo effect might operate in eaoh item to contribute to a high totalsoore, none of the items was found to have an index higher than .859.

However, India#*

above .70 are rather unsatisfactory and only those less than .60 may be considered really good.

Forty-eight out of 1 4 0 items (or about 34%)

had high indices (.699-.859), about 38% of the indices were medium in sise (.599-.699), and the remaining 2.8% were low (.50-.599). In an attempt to get some indication of the extent to which halo effect and bias were operative in the total scores, Sample B of the scales for intermediate grade teachers was resoored, giving a score of plus one for each non-discriminating complimentary choice and a score of minus one for eaoh non-discriminating derogatory choice.12 Discriminating ohoioes were not scored.

Since the papers contained un­

equal numbers of non-dlaorlmlnatlng choices, it was necessary to divide

distinction should be made between complimentary and derogatory and complimentary and derogatory oholces. Choice of a derogatory item (*.g., faultfinding)as least like the ratee is a complimentary choice, while choice of a complimentary item (e.g., ££operative)as Ifgft 3jftT the ratee is a derogatory choice. 36

the algebraic sum or the points Tor the 20 Items In each soale by the total

number of non^Hscriminating items Barked.

If the non-discriminating items were very little or not at all associated with effectiveness in discipline, and if other factors, e.g.,

halo effect, were not operating to produce a spurious relation­

ship,

the correlation of the scores with the criterion should beaero

or very low.

If, on the other hand, a substantial correlation were

found, it would nean either that there was a true relationship existing (the items were not actually non-discriminating) or that extraneous factors were operating to Bake it appear that there was a relationship. The difference between the r obtained when the original key was used and the r obtained when using this bogus key Bight be assumed to be due to the superiority of the discrimination value of the items soored on the original key.

Halo effect and bias Bight be expected to contribute

to both validity coefficients about equally. The validity coefficient for the scoring of the non—discriminat­ ing Items based upon this particular sample of lOO papers was .564. This is to be contrasted with the coefficient of .754 which was found when the original key was used.

The index of forecasting efficiency

(E *■1— T 1—r*) is lowered from .343 to .174 by scoring the non—dis­ criminating items rather than using the empirically determined key. That is, the accuracy of prediction of the criterion ratings from the rating sheet scores would be approximately halved (.343 vs. .174) if the bogus key were used Instead of the true key.

At first glance this

might seem to indicate that efficiency of prediction from the scale is due in about equal amounts to a true relationship between the dis­ criminating traits and effectiveness in discipline and to extraneous 37

factors, such as bias and halo offset.

However, the r of .564 is not

entirely attributable to bias and halo affect.

The so-called "non-

discriminating* Items were not found to hare no discrimination value at all in the first part of the study.

Their discriaination indices were

low (80 or less) but in all oases higher than aero.

These low dis­

crimination values might have been due to halo effect alone or they night indloate a real (although slight) association with effectiveness In discipline.

Not only did the ”non-.

126

"hardbollad”

69

126

111

19.

127

hard to gat acquainted with

80

139

112

20.

133

has hurrlad nannar

64

146

111

21.

138

has superior attituda

50

176

111

22.

195

old-fashioned

62

139

109

23.

245

ahy

25

82

108

24.

249

slow-moving

64

148

108

25.

267

talla things In great de­ tail

56

195

113

26.

273

timid

36

103

108

C.

SCHEDULES FOR RATING

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS Ordinal position In aohadula

Item

DI

PI

# nark­ ing

1.

6

always oompllmenting

67

161

88

2.

7

always Joking

42

158

88

HI 71

T A B U VII C t Continued Ordinal position in sohedule

Item

DI

PI

I nark­ ing

always offering adrlos

11

172

87

14

apologstio

44

156

86

5.

15

asks aany qusstlons

40

178

86

6.

17

athlstio

72

137

87

7.

22

bashful

67

103

90

6.

26

bold

59

159

86

9.

39

cluasy

80

103

87

10.

50

eriss easily

66

87

86

11.

67

draaatie

46

156

85

12.

66

dreany

37

95

87

13.

72

saslly embarrassed

67

130

88

14.

73

saslly satisflsd

64

183

87

15.

74

sasy going

75

198

87

16.

75

sasy to tsass

29

174

85

17.

95

flirts a grout dsal

76

63

86

18.

96

forosful

50

193

84

19.

100

frail

49

81

84

20.

104

gaudy in dross

74

64

87

21.

126

•hardbollsd1*

73

130

87

22.

136

has superior attitude

48

176

84

23.

141

hesitant in Banner

71

144

85

24.

165

lighthearted

53

191

87

25.

170

likes excitement

41

184

88

26.

160

seek

42

106

66

3.

9

u*

72

T A B U VII Ct Continued Ordinal position in sohsduls

I tan

DI

PI

irk*€

190

narvoua

76

161

90

194

oftan regrstaactions

69

140

85

195

old-faahlonad

50

144

89

213

prl*

33

134

86

230

rsstralnsd

30

173

84

231

rigid

59

153

83

232

roaantlc

50

135

86

237

salf-conscious

61

131

86

243

ssntinental

19

176

85

245

shy

56

90

87

249

alou no ring

51

156

88

253

sophis ticatsd

37

172

85

261

sutadsslTS

37

150

84

267

tails things in graat datall

47

191

87

273

tlald

60

91

88

73

TABLE VIII ITEMS WITH LOW DI'S (80 OR LESS) AND HIGH PI'S (200 OR OVER) A.

SCHEDULES FOR RATING PRIMARY TEACiOSiS

Ordinal position in sehadula

Itan

DI

PI

# marklmg

aggressive

26

206

88

12

anxious to make a good impraaslon

47

244

91

3.

46

conventional

79

212

86

u*

56

deeply religious

76

234

91

5.

61

discriminating la choica of frlsnds

27

224

93

6.

80

•njoys arousing curiosity

68

236

90

7.

84

exacting

57

221

91

8.

91

feels things deeply

70

256

91

9.

93

flexible In attitudes

53

201

91

10.

101

frank

51

260

91

11.

137

has strong likes and dis­ likes

56

262

91

12.

UO

healthy

62

262

88

13.

149

Independent

66

279

91

14.

151

Informal

47

265

86

15.

156

insists upon standing up for own rights

30

262

91

16.

18A

modest

69

232

87

17.

200

painstaking

65

222

87

18.

205

persistent

48

238

86

19.

215

proud

38

218

91

1.

5

2.

TABLE VIII At Continued Ordinal position in schadult

Item

DI

PI

# ■ark* ing

20.

221

qulat

70

206

90

2],

226

reserved

77

209

89

22.

236

••If—confident

44

264

90

23.

242

sensitive

39

212

89

24.

243

sentimental

53

210

87

25.

244

serious

75

221

90

26.

254

•peaks in a decided i n n e r

52

236

90

27.

258

strongmlnded

79

254

91

28.

266

talkative

66

242

92

2r*.

267

tells things in great de­ tail

41

206

91

?o.

272

thrifty

77

259

92

B.

SCHEDULES FOR RATING INTERMEDIATE GRADE TEACHERS

Ordinal position in sohadula

DI

Item

PI

0 ■ark. ing

aggressive

50

208

113

12

anxious to make a good im­ pression

27

241

113

3.

15

asks many questions

55

200

111

4.

56

deeply religious

56

206

113

5.

57

determined

77

247

112

6.

61

discriminating in choice of friends

53

234

112

7.

74

easy going

60

207

113

8.

80

enjoys arousing curiosity

54

226

112

1.

5

2.

75

TABLE VIII Bt Continued Ordinal position in schedule

Iten

DI

PI

1 mark­ ing

9.

84

exaoting

31

203

108

10.

91

feels things deeply

74

219

110

11.

93

flexible in attitudes

74

202

110

12.

96

fluent in speech

76

253

113

1?.

96

forceful

78

228

110

u.

101

frank

73

261

110

15.

136

has strong convictions

78

272

108

16.

137

has strong likes and dis­ likes

41

267

106

17.

uo

healthy

71

304

112

ie.

H9

independent

56

263

110

19.

156

insists upon standing up for own rights

37

268

no

20.

165

lighthearted

74

219

109

21.

167

likes attention

68

218

111

22.

215

proud

36

217

108

23.

221

quiet

79

227

109

24.

258

strongmlnded

78

282

109

25.

266

talkative

44

259

114

C.

SCHEDULES FOR RATING

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS Ordinal position in schedule 1.

12

mark* DI

Item anxious to make a good im­ pression 76

PI 6

253

86

TABLE VIII Cs Continued Ordinal position in schedule

Iten

01

PI

# narking

2.

44

oonservatlve

80

261

89

3.

46

conventional

54

210

83

4.

51

orltioal

73

203

86

5.

56

deeply religious

63

211

84

6.

57

date m i n ed

47

295

88

7.

79

energetic

SO

281

86

8.

80

enjoys arousing curiosity

66

219

83

91

feels things deeply

68

254

84

10.

101

frank

44

260

84

11.

136

has strong convictions

79

296

84

12.

137

has strong likes and dis­ likes

46

274

85

13.

140

healthy

64

299

85

14.

149

inde penden t

18

269

87

15.

151

inforeal

29

261

84

16.

156

Insists upon standing up for own rights

33

273

84

17.

188

neat

73

301

90

18.

204

perfectlonlstlc

73

214

84

19.

205

persistent

55

259

87

20.

210

prefers quiet asusements

45

228

85

21.

215

proud

39

243

86

22.

221

quiet

56

232

88

23 .

242

sensitive

49

219

88

24.

244

serious

72

277

88

77

TABLE VIII Ca Continued Ordinal position in oohodulo

Itoa

DI

PI

# nark­ ing

25.

25A

•poaka in a dooidod aannor

60

267

83

26.

258

otrongaindod

66

295

86

27.

266

talkative

55

Tin

86

28.

272

thrifty

77

279

86

78

TABLE IX ITEMS WITH HIGH DI'S (OVER 125) AND HIGH PI'S (OVER 200) A.

SCHEDULES FOR RATING PRIMARY TEACHERS

Ordinal position In schsduls

ItSB

DI

PI

0 nark­ ing

1.

2

active

144

224

92

2.

4

affectionate

128

220

93

3.

U

sainbis

127

254

87

u*

16

at sass with othsrs

129

254

91

5.

18

attractive

126

209

93

6.

30

broadminded

153

230

93

7.

31

143

231

90

8.

36

cheerful

144

233

93

9.

38

olever

142

231

93

10.

43

oonseisntlous

127

256

93

11.

45

oonsidsrats

159

243

93

12.

47

coops rati vs

157

254

93

13 .

48

courageous

164

231

91

H.

49

courtsous

138

271

93

15 .

54

cultured

131

247

88

16.

71

earnest

144

251

91

17.

76

efficient

175

236

90

18.

78

enotlonally stable

142

212

93

19.

79

enersetio

152

20.

81

enthusiastic

139

253

91

21.

83

even-teapered

127

205

93

79

91

TABLE IX At Continued Ordinal position in schedule

0 nark­ It*B

DI

PI

ing

22.

103

friendly

144

286

93

23.

106

generous

144

230

93

24.

107

genial

126

238

87

25.

108

gsntls

164

231

93

26.

101

goes out of way to hslp others

154

220

93

27.

112

good at hiding feelings

142

211

93

28.

113

good conversationalist

128

233

93

29.

114

good leader

162

221

93

30.

115

good listener

163

231

93

31.

116

good natured

145

258

93

32.

117

good sport

159

237

93

33.

120

gracious

136

211

92

34.

125

happy

151

233

91

35.

129

hard working

136

271

93

36.

130

161

249

91

37.

131

has high ideals

132

284

89

38.

134

has many friends

158

245

93

39.

135

has auch initiative

168

222

89

40.

145

hospitable

138

275

91

41.

150

Industrious

130

258

91

42.

160

Jolly

137

215

93

43.

161

kind

166

259

91

44 .

166

likes alaost everybody

143

225

91

a good sense of hunor

80

TABLE IX At Continued Ordinal

position In schedule

XteB

DI

PI

# narking

45.

168

likes ohildren

165

268

91

46 .

178

nature in behavior

142

238

92

47.

196

original in ideas

126

226

91

46.

201

patient

169

235

91

49.

206

pleasant

160

252

88

50.

208

poised

130

223

91

51.

222

reasonable

161

242

91

52.

223

refined

126

252

90

53.

227

resouroeful

160

233

88

54.

228

responsible

147

256

91

55.

238

self-controlled

136

233

90

56.

240

self-re H a n t

133

253

89

57.

241

sensible

150

279

91

58.

248

sincere

138

273

89

59.

251

soeiable

159

251

89

60.

255

steady

134

254

90

61.

256

stimulating

168

213

89

62.

264

sympathetic

142

256

93

63.

265

tactful

146

231

93

64.

269

thinks olearly

140

248

92

65.

270

thorough

138

257

91

66.

271

thoughtful of others

172

240

93

67.

274

tolerant

131

219

88

68.

280

understanding

158

258

93

61

TAHLX IX At Continued Ordinal position in sahsduls

Itsn

DI

PI

# nark­ ing

69.

282

nnsslfish

126

242

91

70 .

283

uses good Judgmsnt

166

240

91

71.

285

usually sailing

140

230

93

7 2.

288

▼sry intslligsnt

137

242

93

73.

294

ws11-lnformsd

132

232

92

B.

3CHEDUIA3 FOR RAT IRQ INTKRMKDIATB GRIDS TKACHER3

Ordinal position In sehaduls

Its*

# mark­ ing

DI

PI

aotlvs

141

261

114

1.

2

2.

10

ambitlous

131

250

U4

3.

30

broadmindsd

158

258

114

4.

31

oalm

132

235

114

5.

35

obarming

172

233

114

6.

36

ahssrful

127

283

115

7.

38

olsvsr

134

255

115

8.

A3

oonsoisntious

146

263

120

9.

45

oonsidsrats

156

268

113

10.

47

ooopsratiTs

144

274

113

11.

48

oouragsous

146

260

108

12.

49

oourtsous

130

282

112

13.

54

oultursd

161

263

111

M.

76

sffloisnt

181

258

113

15.

79

snergstlo

132

258

113

82

T A B U IX B i Continued Ordinal position in sahsdul*

Itsa

01

PI

# narkIng

81

•nthuslast1o

157

262

113

17.

83

ovsn-tsapsrsd

143

252

113

18.

92

fin

133

254

113

19.

103

frisadly

130

302

114

20.

108

gsntls

140

256

112

21.

111

goss out of way to bslp othsrs

150

229

113

22.

113

good oonTsrsatlonallst

126

281

114

23.

114

good lsadsr

167

249

112

24.

115

good llstsnsr

150

262

114

25 .

116

good aatursd

138

282

114

26.

117

good sport

152

269

114

27.

120

graoious

148

242

111

28.

125

happy

141

264

112

29.

129

hard working

139

277

113

30.

130

has a good ssnss of hunor

126

269

111

31.

131

has high idsals

130

286

113

32.

134

has aany frisnds

152

269

113

33.

135

has auoh initiative

145

264

112

34.

U5

hospitabls

151

285

111

35.

150

industrious

134

283

110

36.

160

Jolly

130

260

111

37.

161

kind

142

285

110

00

166

llkss alaost svsrybody

152

259

111

•

16.

83

TUBLE IX Bt Continued Ordinal position in sehoduls

Item

DI

PI

# nark­ ing

39.

168

Ilk*a children

163

277

111

40.

178

nature in behavior

153

271

110

41.

198

original in ideas

162

237

108

42.

201

patient

153

251

110

43.

206

pleasant

153

293

109

44.

208

poised

132

244

108

45 .

209

popular

165

250

111

46.

217

punctual

133

261

109

47.

222

reasonable

160

274

110

48.

223

refined

148

269

110

49.

227

resourceful

167

264

106

50.

228

responsible

170

266

110

51.

241

sensible

182

278

109

52.

248

sincere

152

273

110

53.

255

steady

156

253

109

54.

256

stimulating

157

248

109

55.

257

straightforward

126

277

108

56.

264

sympathetic

144

259

111

57.

265

taetful

160

254

110

58.

269

thinks dearly

152

272

113

59.

270

thorough

167

270

110

60.

271

thoughtful of others

166

262

113

61.

280

understanding

167

260

109

62.

282

unselfish

129

25 3

109

84

TABLE IX Bt Continued Ordinal position in sahedule

Iton

DI

PI

# ■arking

63.

283

uses good Judgment

183

261

111

64.

288

very intelligent

158

271

112

65.

294

well-informed

143

275

110

DI

PI

C.

SCHEDULES FOR RATING

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS Ordinal position In sohodulo

Item

# ■arkIng

1.

16

at ease with others

141

276

88

2.

30

broadminded

129

257

89

3.

35

nh^tnl ng

137

216

90

4.

36

oheerful

137

251

90

5.

45

oonsiderate

141

276

89

6.

47

cooperative

160

269

88

7.

48

courageous

152

256

87

8.

54

oultered

130

266

87

9.

71

earnest

136

300

88

10.

76

efficient

170

274

89

11.

81

enthusiastic

133

269

87

12.

111

goes out of way to help others

132

229

87

13.

113

good conversationalist

148

256

88

14.

114

good leader

181

233

88

15.

115

good listener

146

264

87

16.

116

good natured

143

269

88

85

TABLE IX Ct Continued Ordinal position in schedule

Item

DI

PI

# nark­ ing

17.

117

good sport

160

257

87

18.

119

graceful

131

209

87

19.

120

gracious

US

245

84

20.

130

has a good sense of honor

130

250

86

21.

131

has high ideals

132

301

85

22.

134

has many friends

145

248

87

23.

135

has mich initiative

156

258

86

24.

161

kind

135

280

86

25.

166

likes almost everybody

143

227

89

26.

168

likes children

130

262

90

27.

178

nature in behavior

138

270

90

28.

198

original in ideas

145

233

87

29.

201

patient

138

242

90

30.

206

pleasant

151

266

90

31.

208

poised

158

239

87

32.

209

popular

153

234

89

33.

222

reasonable

14.0

256

89

34.

227

resouroeful

163

254

90

35.

228

responsible

150

279

90

36.

241

sensible

141

284

88

37.

255

steady

142

262

87

38.

256

stimulating

148

228

86

39.

264

sympathetic

140

247

87

40.

265

tactful

134

239

87

86

TABLE IX Ci Continued Ordinal position in schedule

Itea

DI

PI

0 nark­ ing

41.

269

thinks clearly

H9

282

87

42.

270

thorough

146

266

87

43.

271

thoughtful of others

156

262

86

44.

280

understanding

U8

267

88

45.

283

uses good judgment

U6

257

88

46.

285

usually sal11ng

138

237

87

87

TABLE X ITEMS WITH HIGH DI»S (OVER 125) AND LOW PI'S (UNDER 200) A.

SCHEDULES FOR RATING PRIMARY TEACHERS

Ordinal position In sehadula

Itam

DI

PI

# mark Ing

1.

1

absant-alndad

133

142

93

2.

8

always nahi ng axousas

152

152

93

3.

21

avoids rasponsibillty

133

H3

93

4.

24

baoomas upaat ovar trlflas

126

163

92

5.

25

blunt

136

178

90

6.

27

boring

161

160

93

7.

28

bossy

139

177

93

8.

29

brags a groat daal

U2

138

91

9.

35

charming

126

198

92

10.

37

childish

140

153

92

11.

39

clumsy

126

115

91

12.

11

complaining

139

162

93

13,

12

oonoaitad

150

146

93

U.

52

oross

143

145

93

15.

53

orual

143

96

91

16.

61

dogmatic

126

156

86

17.

85

axaggaratas a grant daal

131

139

92

18.

89

faultfinding

140

161

92

19.

109

gloomy

156

118

92

20.

110

glut

156

116

89

21.

121

graady

138

96

93

88

TABIC X At Continued Ordinal position in sahedule

Iton

DI

PI

# nark­ ing

22.

122

grouchy

169

130

93

23.

123

gulliblo

137

116

89

24.

139

haughty

146

110

86

25.

142

highstrung

138

161

93

26.

143

holds a grudgs

128

159

92

27.

155

insists upon haring own '•y

128

179

91

28.

158

irritabls

156

164

92

29.

159

jealous

141

167

92

30.

172

llstlsss

134

120

86

31.

175

nakss bitter eneny

126

129

92

32.

176

maladjusted

155

149

88

33.

185

moody

148

143

90

34.

186

nagging

174

133

92

35.

191

nosey j prlsa into other's affairs

143

146

89

36.

199

overbearing

165

146

89

37.

209

popular

174

199

92

38.

211

prejudiced

130

187

89

39.

218

quarrelsome

150

130

92

40.

219

quiok to take offense

164

172

88

41.

224

refuses to admit mis­ takes

148

170

91

42.

229

restless

130

142

91

~3.

233

sarcastic

170

152

89

89

TABLE X As Continue* Ordinal position in schsduls

Itm

DI

PI

# mark* ing

u .

234

scornful

161

146

91

45.

235

sslf—osntsrod

149

153

88

46.

250

sly, snsaky in nannar

132

96

89

47.

259

stubborn

137

180

93

48.

263

suspioious of othsrs

155

143

87

49.

275

•touohy* on various sub> jsots

126

178

92

50.

281

nnl— fllnstlrs

138

137

89

51.

286

vain

137

85

86

o .

3UHKIJU1.B r U K

H A T I N I. X N T E K M K l H A T K

Ordinal position in a chsduls

Itom

GRAUK

TEiCHKHS

DI

PI

# nark­ ing

1.

8

always asking sxousss

146

137

116

2.

21

avoids rssponsibility

134

107

115

3.

23

In o o m s motional in argumsnts

127

160

114

4♦

25

blunt

141

147

116

5.

27

boring

162

124

114

6.

37

childish

135

104

116

7.

41

oomplainIng

142

130

115

8.

52

oross

128

123

113

9.

89

fault-finding

146

145

113

10 .

121

grssdy

129

85

112

11.

122

grouchy

133

98

112

90

T A B U X Bt Continued Ordinal position in sohedulo

Iten

DI

PI

# nark, ing

12.

142

highstrung

136

141

110

13.

143

holds a grudgo

137

124

112

1>**

158

irritable

137

127

109

15.

175

aakes bitter eneny

155

105

109

16.

176

Maladjusted

138

113

110

17.

179

mean

136

64

109

18.

183

Misunderstood

142

90

110

19.

186

nagging

158

105

110

20.

189

negleets work

132

108

111

21.

191

nosey; pries Into other's affairs

133

107

110

22.

218

quarrelsome

142

109

109

23.

219

qulak to take offense

139

131

106

24.

224

refuses to adnlt Mistakes

131

108

110

25.

233

saroastle

143

115

110

26.

234

scornful

132

106

106

27.

235

self-centered

129

139

106

28.

250

sly, sneaky In manner

129

76

108

29.

259

stubborn

130

140

114

30.

263

suspiolous of others

151

133

113

31.

279

uncertain

135

130

109

32.

292

wastes time

137

114

111

91

T A B U X. Continued C.

SCHEDULES FOR RATIHQ

JUHIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS Ordinal position in schedule

Itaa

DI

PI

0 nark­ ing

1.

24

beooues upaat over trifles

127

172

89

2.

27

boring

139

132

90

3.

41

oonplaining

130

139

88

U*

49

courteous

130

197

87

5.

60

disoontented

131

138

86

6.

62

disillusioned

143

128

86

7.

89

fault-finding

135

156

88

8.

110

glun

134

94

87

9.

122

grouchy

135

103

87

10.

148

inconsistent

130

148

84

11.

158

irritable

131

128

87

12.

174

magnifies own troubles

125

151

89

13.

175

■akaa bitter enemy

126

118

89

14.

176

maladjusted

160

133

89

15.

186

nagging

127

121

90

16.

218

quarrelsoae

133

131

88

17.

219

quiok to taka offansa

133

164

90

18.

229

restless

133

136

89

19.

235

self—centered

129

139

87

20.

259

stubborn

135

171

87

21.

275

"touchy" on Yarious subJeots

126

189

87

92

TABLE XI ITEMS WITH DISCRIMINATION INDICES BETWEEN 80 AND 125 A.

SHEETS FOR RATING PRIMARY TEACHERS

Ordinal position in schedule

Item

DI

# mark' ing

81

178

91

102

251

91

88

209

90

athletic

101

126

92

23

becomes emotional in arguments

102

162

92

6.

26

bold

101

161

89

7.

33

cautious

82

215

92

8.

34

changeable

83

167

90

9.

AO

cold

101

117

92

10 .

44

conservative

103

228

93

11.

51

critical

113

174

91

12.

57

determined

91

266

91

13.

59

dignified

101

222

90

H.

60

discontented

107

152

90

15.

62

disillusioned

100

151

89

16.

63

distant

108

160

91

17.

65

dominant

92

157

89

• t Ho

always offering advice

PI

66

domineering

120

152

89

19.

70

eager to please

108

207

92

20.

73

easily satisfied

94

136

92

1.

9

*■' •

10

ambitious

3.

15

asks many questions

U•

17

5.

93

TABLE XI As Continued Ordinal position In schedule

Iton

DI

21.

82

erratic, unprsdlatabls in behavior

22.

87

expects spsolal privileges

23.

90

24.

PI

# nark ing

95

139

88

117

153

91

feels inferior

84

131

89

92

firn

95

235

91

2 5.

94

flighty

100

112

91

26.

96

fluent in speech

104

218

89

2 7.

97

fond of exercise

91

161

90

28.

99

forgetful

110

128

92

29.

102

frequently disoouraged

92

146

91

30.

104

gaudy in dress

83

87

91

31.

105

WKT

112

197

93

32.

118

gossipy

117

147

92

3 3.

119

gmoeful

114

184

93

34.

124

gushing in tinner

90

102

88

35.

126

■hardbolled"

107

129

91

36.

128

hard to understand

118

171

91

37.

132

has high pitched voice

117

140

92

38.

133

has hurried aannar

82

145

89

39.

136

has strong convictions

89

267

88

40 .

144

honest

114

318

91

41.

147

lapulsive

82

161

87

42.

148

inconsistent

114

157

89

43.

163

liberal

102

203

88

94

T A B U XI At Continued Ordinal position in schedule

Iten

DI

PI

0 mark ing

44.

164

life of the party

92

155

92

45.

165

lighthearted

88

184

91

46.

167

likes attention

95

234

91

47.

169

likes to argue

87

154

92

4B.

171

likes to create a sensation

101

164

89

49.

173

loyal

122

277

87

50.

174

nagnlfies own troubles

113

163

91

51.

179

■ear

122

77

90

52.

182

nlld sannersd

82

203

88

53.

188

neat

121

274

87

54.

189

neglects work

122

105

91

55.

190

nervous

108

164

91

56.

192

not easily fooled

89

243

90

57.

193

objective in attitude

103

220

86

58.

197

optimistic

108

222

90

59.

202

peculiar

113

168

92

60.

203

P*PPJ

88

192

89

61.

210

prefers quiet amusements

81

223

90

62.

217

punctual

121

249

91

63.

220

quickwitted

90

206

87

64.

225

remains calm in emergencies

109

216

89

65.

246

silly

103

98

90

66.

249

slow-moving

90

179

90

67.

252

soft—vo iced

112

218

90

95

TABLE XI At Continued Ordinal positIon in sohadula

Itaa

01

PI

# wrkinf

68.

257

straightforward

108

258

92

69.

260

studious

101

257

93

70.

268

tsnss

120

150

90

71.

277

truthful

116

307

92

72.

279

uncertain

121

157

91

73.

284

usually disagrees with othsrs

124

147

91

74.

289

vigorous

91

209

87

75.

291

wants to bs the esntsr of attraotlon

115

119

90

76.

292

wastas tins

123

129

92

77.

293

vell—groaaed

119

257

93

78.

295

whlmsleal

93

108

87

79.

296

wfalnlBg

105

104

91

80.

297

witty

90

181

90

B.

SCHEDULES FOR RATING INTERMEDIATE GRADE TEACHERS

Ordinal position in sohadula

Itau

# ■arkin*

DI

PI

121

124

115

87

225

113

1.

1

abaan t-wlnded

2.

4

affaotionata

3.

16

at aasa with others

106

287

113

A*

18

attractive

103

240

113

5.

24

baoouas upsat over trifles

122

149

115

6.

26

bold

88

152

113

96

TABLE XI Bt Continued Ordinal position In sohadula

Item

# mark­ ing

DI

PI

119

152

115

7.

28

bossy-

8.

29

brags a grsat daal

95

lie

114

9.

33

cautious

88

212

108

10.

34

changeable

84

152

112

11.

39

oluasy

89

99

115

12.

4-0

oold

98

97

114

13.

42

oonoaltad

94

125

112

14.

44

conservative

83

145

111

15.

50

orlas aaslly

92

93

113

16.

51

critical

104

175

111

17.

53

erual

117

72

108

18.

59

dignified

85

234

114

19.

60

discontantad

lie

106

110

20.

62

disillusioned

121

120

108

21.

63

distant

in

130

109

22.

65

dominant

82

166

109

23.

66

domineering

102

161

115

24.

70

aagar to plaasa

117

228

113

25.

78

emotionally stable

120

256

111

26.

82

erratic, unpredictable in behavior

116

120

108

27.

85

exaggerates a great deal

109

114

110

28.

86

excitable

97

153

110

29.

87

expects special privileges

120

123

111

97

T A B U XI Bt Continued Ordinal position in schedule

Iton

DI

PI

| ^fking

30.

95

flirts a great deal

86

71

109

31.

97

fond of exercise

82

207

114

32.

102

frequently discouraged

97

147

109

33.

105

87

234

110

34.

106

generous

105

271

111

35.

109

gloony

109

114

111

36.

112

good at hiding feelings

116

210

113

37.

118

gossipy

104

133

114

38.

119

graceful

112

230

115

39.

128

hard to understand

lOl

136

112

40.

132

has high pitched toice

93

127

113

a .

139

haughty

118

100

110

42.

144

honest

118

330

112

43.

151

lnfonal

97

244

108

44 *

155

Insists upon haring own

116

159

114

45.

159

Jealous

117

125

106

46.

162

lacks energy

103

123

112

47.

164

life of the party

84

190

112

48.

169

likes to argue

98

128

110

49.

174

aagnlfies own troubles

123

141

109

50.

188

neat

105

299

110

51.

190

nervous

116

139

110

52.

202

peculiar

123

118

109

96

TABLX XI Bt Continued Ordinal position In sohadula

Iten

DI

PI

# nark­ ing

53.

203

P*PP7

104

219

108

54.

225

rsas 1ns calm in energen— oiss

114

235

109

55.

229

rsstlsss

117

118

111

56.

251

sooiahls

120

295

108

57.

260

studious

122

249

112

58.

272

thrifty

94

266

108

59.

275

■touohy" on various subjaots

120

156

112

60.

277

truthful

115

313

113

61.

284

usually disagrees with othars

107

123

111

62 .

285

usually sailing

98

283

112

63.

291

wants to bs the oantar of attraction

112

114

110

64.

293

wa11-groonad

112

282

109

65.

298

worries a great daal

120

138

110

C.

SCHEDULES FOR RAT IMG

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS Ordinal position in sohadula

DI

I tan

PI

# nark­ ing

1.

1

absantndndad

95

120

90

2.

2

active

90

266

90

3.

3

affected

101

152

86

4.

4

affectionate

90

187

87

99

TABLE H Ordinal position In schedule 8

Ci Continued

Item

DI

PI

# marking

always making excuses

101

84

89

6.

10

ambitious

119

290

87

7.

11

amiable

118

252

83

8.

18

attractive

102

228

88

9.

21

avoids responsibility

117

98

88

10.

23

beooaes emotional In argu­ ments

109

173

88

11.

25

blunt

120

172

89

12.

28

bossy

115

178

89

13.

29

brags a great deal

94

127

89

14.

31

ealm

123

249

90

15*

33

cautious

85

222

86

16.

34

changeable

112

174

88

17 .

37

childish

124

122

88

18.

38

clever

122

244

89

19.

40

cold

97

146

87

20.

42

oonoelted

91

108

88

21.

43

conscientious

122

285

89

22.

52

cross

106

149

88

23.

53

oruel

97

81

86

24 .

59

dignified

92

230

87

25.

63

distant

87

159

87

26.

65

dominant

99

184

84

27.

66

domineering

96

171

84

100

TABLE XI C* Continued Ordinal position In schedule

Item

# nark. ing

DI

PI

104

160

82

28.

69

djnaalo

29.

70

eager to please

85

217

89

30.

77

•notional

88

160

87

31.

78

•notlonally atahl*

122

236

87

32.

82

•rratle, unprediotable In behavior

108

154

85

33.

83

•rtn-teupered

103

218

88

34.

85

exaggerates a great d«al

97

120

85

35.

86

excitable

103

153

87

36.

87

expects special privileges

98

120

86

37.

90

f««li inferior

95

110

88

38.

92

fire

120

267

88

39.

94

flighty

123

104

85

40.

96

fluent in speech

90

262

87

41.

97

fond of exorcise

92

174

84

42.

99

forgetful

108

116

88

43.

102

frequently discouraged

lOO

132

88

44.

103

friendly

119

278

88

45.

105

mr

lOO

218

86

46.

106

generous

110

252

86

47.

108

gentle

89

252

86

48.

109

glooey

110

109

88

49.

112

good at hiding feelings

118

211

87

50.

118

gossipy

87

112

88

1Q1

TABLE XI Cs Continued Ordlo&l position In schedule

Itea

DI

51.

121

greedy

52.

124

gnihlng in M n n t r

53.

125

happy

54.

127

55.

PI

§ ■arklag

lOl

81

85

88

90

86

123

249

88

hard to get acquainted with

83

142

88

128

hard to understand

86

183

86

56.

129

hard working

95

299

87

57.

132

has high pitched voice

100

101

87

58.

133

has hurried asnner

88

155

87

59.

139

haughty

86

100

87

60.

142

hlghetrung

113

147

85

61.

143

holds a grudge

101

127

86

62.

144

honest

88

327

85

63.

1A5

hospitable

108

281

86

64.

150

Industrious

98

301

86

65.

155

Insists upon having own way

121

179

86

66.

159

Jealous

108

111

84

67.

160

Jolly

116

220

85

68.

162

lacks energy

88

120

87

69.

163

liberal

98

231

85

70.

164

life of the party

91

144

86

71.

167

likes attention

84

202

88

72.

169

likes to argue

99

151

88

102

TABLE XI Ci Contlnuad Ordinal position in sohadula

ITB4

DI

PI

# nark­ ing

73.

171

llkas to oraata a sansation

82

142

89

74.

172

llstlass

96

87

87

75.

173

loyal

121

297

88

76.

177

■aliolou*

89

73

84

77.

179

■aan

101

83

87

78.

182

■1Id-wannarad

92

217

84

79.

183

misunderstood

100

117

86

80.

184

nodast

90

236

88

81.

185

moody

87

132

90

82.

189

naglaots work

98

78

89

83.

191

nosayt prlas Into othar's affairs

103

103

89

84.

192

not aaslly foolad

123

256

88

85.

196

oplnlonatad

112

201

84

86.

197

optimist!o

82

228

86

87.

199

orsrbaarlng

110

152

87

88.

200

painstaking

97

220

87

89.

202

paoullar

116

175

89

90.

203

P*PP7

88

198

88

91.

211

prajudload

103

147

88

92.

214

procrastinating

102

119

85

93.

217

punctual

116

273

90

94,

220

qulok-wittad

109

243

89

95.

223

raflnad

120

276

86

103

TiSLI XI Ct Coatlnud Ordinal po*itio* la aohadula

Itmm

96.

224

97.

| Mrking

DI

PI

rtfttati to adalt iltUkts

106

124

90

225

renalna oaln in emergencies

101

233

89

96.

226

reserved

105

236

86

99.

233

saroaatio

117

125

88

100.

234

aooraful

115

97

89

101.

236

aalf-confidant

93

247

87

102.

238

self-controlled

120

246

87

103.

240

self-reliant

123

259

87

10A.

246

ailly

107

86

88

105.

248

ainoara

122

294

86

106.

250

aly, sneaky in aannar

90

56

86

107.

251

aooinbla

116

269

88

108.

252

soft—voioed

95

232

88

109.

257

straightforward

118

280

86

110.

260

atudioua

106

276

85

111.

263

auapioioua of othera

116

134

87

112.

268

tanaa

93

138

86

113.

274

tolarant

116

239

88

114.

277

truthfml

106

323

86

115.

279

uncertain

103

134

88

116,

281

nn1naginatlve

110

128

85

117.

282

unselfish

103

284

88

118.

284

usually disagreea with othera

115

147

86

104

TiBLK XI Ci Continued Ordinal position in sohedule

Iton

# aark lng

DI

PI

100

102

81

90

215

82

106

291

88

119.

266

vain

120.

287

TirMtil* in interests

121.

266

w r y intelligent

122.

289

vigorous

86

239

85

123.

291

wants to be the oenter of attraction

89

121

87

121.

292

wastes tine

91

108

87

125.

293

we U —grooaed

85

289

88

126.

291

well-informed

113

281

89

127.

296

whining

95

78

86

128.

297

witty

86

198

88

129.

298

worries a great deal

91

169

88

105

TABLE XII SCORES AND DISCIPLINE RATINGS FOR PRIMARY TKACHBtS Total ioort

original key

Dlsaipllne rating*

Odds

Evens

1

-20

-16

-36

S

2

15

13

28

A

3

2

-2

0

C

A

23

21

44

A

5

2

5

7

B

6

11

7

18

B

7

20

18

38

A

8

20

13

33

B

9

-3

-3

-6

C

10

22

17

39

A

11

5

9

14

B

12

-7

0

-7

B

13

-20

-14

-34

E

U

-20

-19

-39

D

15

24

17

41

A

16

-19

-18

-37

D

17

21

22

4.3

A

18

-20

-13

-33

E

15

13

28

B

•A * highest 1/51 B = second 1/5 j C E - lowest 1/5. 106

middle 1/51 D - n e x t to lov-

TABLE n i

Continued Total loort

Odda

Krona

rating

kay

20

-14

-8

-22

C

21

4

-2

2

c

22

15

17

32

c

23

5

-1

4

D

24

8

12

20

B

25

-15

-14

-29

E

26

-19

-18

-37

K

27

-4

-9

-13

E

28

17

13

30

C

29

3

2

5

C

30

-1

2

1

E

31

7

3

10

C

32

-13

-2

-15

B

33

21

20

41

C

34

-18

-17

-35

E

35

11

15

26

B

36

3

1

4

B

37

15

12

27

D

38

21

17

33

A

39

20

20

40

A

40

1

-6

-5

C

41

-1

-6

-7

D

42

11

13

24

B

107

TABLE XII Continued

Papar

Total soors orl|j key

DlsoipULns rating

Odds

Evans

A3

21

17

38

A

44

13

14

27

A

45

20

23

43

A

46

19

15

34

A

47

14

9

23

A

48

17

16

33

A

49

21

17

38

A

50

16

17

33

A

51

18

14

32

A

52

17

14

31

A

53

19

21

40

A

54

22

16

38

B

55

13

12

25

C

56

19

23

42

A

57

7

-5

2

D

58

-16

-16

-32

E

59

9

9

18

B

60

25

18

43

A

61

7

9

16

C

62

23

20

43

A

63

A

3

7

C

64

22

21

43

A

65

8

0

6

C

#

108

TABLE III Continued Total aoors orlgJ ksy

Paper #

Odds

66

19

21

40

A

67

18

18

36

A

68

3

-3

0

D

69

6

4

10

E

70

4

12

16

C

71

22

19

41

A

72

15

12

27

C

73

19

18

37

B

Ik

5

5

10

E

75

-5

-6

-11

C

76

23

18

41

A

77

-16

-23

-39

E

78

6

8

14

C

79

20

17

37

A

80

-5

-11

-16

E

81

-18

-19

-37

E

82

1

_2

-1

C

83

7

12

19

C

84

-7

-11

-18

E

85

15

19

34

A

86

0

-2

-2

C

87

18

19

37

A

88

-5

-14

-19

D

Evans

1 09

DieclpUn* rating

TABLE H I Continued Total soore £ t • 0M

Disoiplin* rating

Paper 1

Odds

89

2

-4

-2

C

90

19

19

38

A

91

-19

-17

-36

E

92

21

19

AO

A

93

22

20

42

B

94

19

20

39

A

95

18

2A

32

B

96

21

22

43

A

97

23

20

43

A

98

16

1A

30

A

99

24

2A

48

A

100

-25

-23

—48

E

101

5

11

16

C

102

18

16

34

A

103

9

6

15

C

104

-6

-11

-1 7

D

105

15

16

31

B

106

-17

-15

-32

E

107

17

13

30

A

108

7

5

12

E

109

18

21

39

A

no

19

19

38

B

in

16

10

26

C

Evens

110

T i B U XII Continued Total soore orlg: key

Paper 0

Olde

112

10

9

19

B

113

19

16

35

A

1U

-16

-1A

-30

E

115

2

2

A

E

116

6

8

11

D

117

1

-9

-8

E

118

23

19

12

A

119

-17

-18

-35

E

120

8

1

12

C

121

23

21

11

A

122

-20

-22

-12

E

123

15

19

31

A

121

-10

-18

-28

E

125

u

15

29

B

126

-3

1

-2

C

127

3

8

11

B

128

22

18

10

B

129

13

5

18

C

130

U

1

15

D

131

18

18

36

A

132

-11

-12

-23

E

133

12

11

26

C

131

22

17

39

A

Sreni

111

Discipline rating

TABLE H I Continued Total soore orlg. il koy

Paper 0

Odds

135

16

10

26

C

136

13

16

29

A

137

13

12

25

C

138

18

12

30

C

139

12

16

28

B

140

-17

-21

-38

E

141

12

10

22

C

142

20

20

40

B

143

-3

-1

—4

E

LU

16

17

33

C

145

21

20

41

A

U6

-5

-3

-8

D

147

11

15

26

C

148

7

2

9

A

U9

13

13

26

A

150

16

17

33

A

151

-16

-11

-27

E

152

18

20

38

A

153

11

11

22

A

154

21

19

40

A

155

17

8

25

C

156

18

14

32

A

157

19

21

40

A

Krsns

112

DlsoipUno rating

TABLE XII Continued Total ioor« orlgJ key

Dlsoiplln* rating

Paper #

Odds

158

18

21

39

C

159

19

21

40

A

160

5

11

16

C

161

9

15

24

B

162

10

7

17

C

163

24

22

46

A

164

11

2

13

E

165

21

17

38

C

166

4

5

9

c

167

14

15

29

A

166

2

—4

-2

D

169

11

12

23

B

170

4

7

11

B

171

6

3

9

A

172

17

17

34

A

173

1

4

5

C

17A

-6

-4

-10

E

175

-22

-19

-41

E

176

21

22

43

A

177

-5

-12

-17

E

178

19

20

39

B

179

20

18

38

C

180

20

20

40

A

Evans

113

TABXX XII Continued Total aoore orlg: key

Paper #

Odd*

181

-5

-9

-1A

C

182

-16

-13

-29

E

183

17

18

35

A

18A

-7

-6

-13

E

185

O

-3

-3

E

186

13

14

27

A

187

19

16

35

A

188

17

18

35

C

189

23

23

A6

A

190

21

22

A3

B

191

-A

3

-1

C

192

12

15

27

A

193

23

19

A2

A

19A

17

17

3A

A

195

U

3

17

A

196

-10

-6

-16

D

197

16

16

32

A

196

17

16

33

C

199

18

18

36

A

200

18

20

38

B

201

-7

-1

-8

C

202

8

2

10

C

203

11

12

23

C

Ertni

HA

DlsolpUni rating

TABLE XII Continued

Pap«r

Total aoora orlg: ksy

BiflclpHna rating

#

Odds

204.

-3

6

205

10

12

22

c

206

19

17

36

A

207

15

14

29

B

208

12

10

22

B

209

6

4

10

B

210

-14

-16

-30

C

211

6

1

7

B

212

19

15

34

A

213

14

8

22

C

2K

15

15

30

C

215

-11

-13

-24

c

216

U

14

25

B

217

21

23

44

A

218

3

-3

0

C

219

17

13

30

A

220

9

12

21

A

221

21

20

41

A

222

14

21

35

B

223

22

17

39

A

224

18

20

38

A

225

20

19

39

A

226

16

20

36

A

Ersns

115

3

C

T A B U XII Continued Total soore orlg:

Paper

Discipline rating

#

Odds

Brens

227

-5

-5

-io

B

228

22

17

39

A

229

17

5

22

C

230

-12

-7

-19

s

231

-5

-2

-7

B

232

19

17

36

A

233

22

19

41

A

234.

20

20

40

A

235

5

0

5

C

236

-9

-11

-20

K

237

8

12

20

C

238

-9

—4

-13

E

239

21

15

36

B

240

18

10

28

A

241

13

5

18

B

242

-16

-13

-29

E

243

19

20

39

A

244

-4

-4

-8

C

245

-6

O

-6

C

246

14

5

19

A

247

14

17

31

C

248

14

12

26

E

249

9

7

16

D

116

key

TABLE XII Continued Total •oor* orlg: key

Di*eiplln* rating

Paper 0

Odds

Evan*

250

22

22

44

A

251

22

20

42

A

252

13

13

26

C

253

7

A

11

C

254-

22

19

41

A

255

—4

-9

-13

D

256

-15

-15

-30

E

257

6

5

11

B

258

20

19

39

A

259

18

15

33

A

260

18

12

30

A

261

-16

-10

-26

E

262

5

10

15

C

263

16

14

30

A

264

9

13

22

C

265

-10

-6

-16

E

266

16

19

35

A

267

13

13

26

C

266

17

15

32

B

269

-9

-11

-20

E

270

16

15

31

A

271

17

16

33

A

272

-2

6

4

B

117

TABLE XII Continued Total aoore orlg: kajr

Paper #

Odda

273

10

17

27

B

274

2

-5

-3

E

275

13

14

27

C

276

20

20

AO

A

277

-13

-1

-14

C

278

19

21

40

B

279

6

5

U

C

280

-15

-14

-29

D

281

5

9

14

B

282

-5

-9

-14

0

283

13

14

27

A

2a ;

21

20

41

B

285

2

3

5

E

286

6

7

13

E

287

9

10

19

B

288

19

16

35

C

289

7

12

19

D

290

11

19

30

B

291

19

12

31

A

292

18

21

39

A

293

15

15

30

D

294

13

14

27

C

295

8

10

18

c

Evana

118

Diacipllne rating

TABLE XII Continued Total soore Discipline rating

Odds

296

10

16

26

A

297

0

1

1

C

298

7

5

12

B

299

20

21

41

A

300

9

7

16

C

301

19

20

39

B

302

-19

-20

-39

E

303

-11

-13

-24

C

304

-2

-5

-7

B

305

13

10

23

C

306

1

0

1

E

307

18

15

33

A

308

14

14

28

B

309

16

16

32

A

310

2

1

3

C

311

-1

-7

-8

D

312

-15

-17

-32

E

313

17

17

34

C

314

-15

-17

-32

E

315

20

22

42

A

316

-18

-18

-36

E

317

-15

-16

-31

E

318

19

21

40

A

Brans

119

0M

Paper #

TABLE XII Continued Total Discipline rating

Odds

319

18

20

38

A

320

-13

-16

-29

E

321

21

21

42

A

322

7

3

10

D

323

21

17

38

C

324

-18

-18

-36

E

325

16

15

31

A

-17

-28

E

326

-U

Bvons

0M

Paper #

327

5

2

7

C

328

23

19

42

A

329

15

10

25

C

330

-17

-20

-37

E

331

24

18

42

A

332

-4

-11

-15

C

333

-13

-12

-25

D

334

6

7

13

C

335

17

17

34

A

336

-11

-13

-24

D

337

21

23

44

B

338

16

5

21

B

339

-18

-10

-28

D

340

14

8

22

A

341

-15

-15

-30

0

120

TABLE XII Continued

Papsr #

Odds

Evens

Total soors orig: key

342

-16

-17

-33

E

343

19

15

34

A

344

-10

-11

-21

E

345

20

18

38

A

346

-21

-17

-38

E

347

—4

-7

-11

C

348

21

19

40

A

349

3

0

3

D

350

15

18

33

B

351

10

15

25

C

352

-16

-15

-31

E

353

21

22

43

A

354

17

16

33

A

355

22

19

41

A

356

19

17

36

C

-9

-20

E

357

-U

Discipline ratine

358

18

16

34

B

359

19

17

36

A

360

4

-1

3

C

361

-2

-5

-7

E

362

11

17

28

A

363

20

19

39

A

364

10

3

13

C

121

T A B U XII Continued

Paper #

Odds

Evan#

Total score orig: key

Discipline rating

365

5

13

18

C

366

0

5

5

D

367

14

8

22

C

368

18

20

38

A

369

11

12

23

C

370

19

22

41

A

371

16

22

38

A

372

7

0

7

C

373

9

10

19

c

374

18

17

35

A

375

1

-2

-1

E

376

8

8

16

B

377

22

21

43

A

378

-11

-2

-13

C

379

-12

-18

-30

D

380

15

13

28

A

381

20

19

39

A

382

19

13

32

C

383

14

16

30

C

384

-9

-17

-26

D

385

23

20

43

A

386

15

19

34

B

387

8

9

17

E

122

TABLE H I Continued

Paper

#

Odds

Evens

Total soore original key

Discipline rating

388

-11

-9

-20

D

389

10

5

15

C

390

21

A2

A

21

123

table

m i

SCORES AND DISCIPLINE RATINGS FOR INTERMEDIATE GRADE TEACHERS Total ■oor* original key

Discipline rating*

Odds

Evens

1

-11

-10

-21

E

2

8

10

18

C

3

17

18

35

A

A

5

Ar

9

C

5

17

16

33

A

6

-16

-12

-28

E

7

9

10

19

B

8

17

16

33

C

9

9

11

20

B

10

-1

-3

—A

D

11

3

2

5

C

12

16

11

27

A

13

12

7

19

B

U

-6

-8

15

U

16

30

A

16

-9

-8

-17

C

17

-5

3

-2

D

18

0

-6

-6

C

#

-U

D

*A * high#at 1/5; B - second 1/5; C - middle 1/5; D - next to lowat 1/5; E =•lowest 1/5. 12A

TABLE XIII Continued ToUl floors original key

Discipline rating

Odds

Evens

19

-9

-12

-21

D

20

-11

-12

-23

E

21

-5

-7

-12

C

22

-4

-3

-7

E

23

-6

-9

-15

C

24

-12

-13

-25

E

25

6

10

16

D

26

3

5

8

C

27

-6

-10

-16

E

28

15

U

29

C

29

17

U

31

A

30

-1

—4

-5

C

31

8

5

13

B

32

-2

-6

^6

E

33

IB

19

37

B

34

18

17

35

A

35

-1

2

1

C

36

-13

-9

-22

E

37

7

10

17

A

38

0

8

8

E

39

4

5

9

C

40

-11

-14

-25

E

41

-7

1

-6

C

#

125

TABLE XIII Continued Total soore orig; key

Papsr #

Odds

42

-11

-8

-19

E

43

6

6

12

C

44

15

18

33

c

45

18

15

33

A

46

-14

-13

-27

E

47

-3

-7

-10

E

48

8

8

16

A

49

-14

-15

-29

D

50

18

18

36

A

51

14

15

29

B

52

11

4

15

B

53

-5

-9

-14

D

54

14.

9

23

C

55

-16

-12

-28

E

56

-2

-2

57

-9

-10

-19

D

58

17

16

33

A

59

18

13

31

A

60

-10

-9

-19

A

61

8

4

12

A

62

-9

-9

-18

E

63

6

6

12

C

64

13

16

29

E

Brens

126

Discipline rating

C

TABLE XIII Continued

#

Odd a

Evana

Total aoora original k«7

Diaoipllna rating

65

-4

-2

-6

A

66

12

13

25

B

67

2

2

4

C

68

-4

-1

-5

E

69

-12

-11

-23

D

70

6

4

10

C

71

10

7

17

D

72

3

3

6

C

73

-5

-4

-9

E

74

17

16

33

A

75

17

17

34

A

76

-11

-19

C

77

16

14

30

A

78

13

10

23

A

79

-6

-e

-14

B

80

14

9

23

C

81

9

7

16

C

82

7

12

19

B

83

3

6

11

C

84

U

14

28

A

85

6

12

20

C

86

-7

-6

-13

c

87

-17

-15

-32

E

127

TABLE XIII Continued To tel aoore OX*Xg3

Paper #

Odds

Dlaclplln*

rating

Even*

88

16

16

32

C

89

-18

-17

-35

E

90

18

17

35

A

91

-7

-5

-12

D

92

-9

-lO

—1°

D

93

14.

18

32

B

94

8

5

13

C

95

9

7

16

E

96

13

18

31

A

97

17

18

35

A

98

3

3

6

B

99

9

10

19

C

100

8

6

14

B

-7

-13

E

101 102

-3

-3

-6

D

103

9

9

18

E

104

16

15

31

C

105

10

14

24

C

106

7

13

20

c

107

-1

2

1

D

108

16

15

31

A

109

-5

"A.

110

-12

-16

128

D -28

E

TABLE XIII Continued Total •oor« orlg^ lcay

Papar 0

Odd*

111

-3

_2

-5

E

112

-12

-10

-22

X

113

-4

2

-6

C

114

-L4

-9

-23

D

115

9

0

9

C

116

-12

-15

-27

E

117

13

10

23

D

118

-5

-7

-12

E

119

2

6

8

C

120

5

6

11

C

121

11

18

32

A

122

U

12

26

B

123

-13

-11

—24

E

121

-5

-7

-12

E

125

11

13

27

C

126

11

10

21

A

127

-10

-5

-15

D

128

15

13

28

A

129

16

U

30

A

130

-6

-5

-11

D

131

-16

-17

-33

E

132

-12

-8

-20

0

133

7

8

15

c

Erana

129

Dlacipllni rating

TAELE XIII Continued Total *oor« orig; kay

Paper #

Odds

134

13

14

27

A

135

-2

-3

-5

C

136

13

12

25

B

137

1

0

1

D

138

13

9

22

B

139

-3

1

-2

D

140

10

11

21

C

141

15

16

31

A

U2

6

2

8

D

U3

-14

-9

-23

C

144

17

14

31

A

145

13

11

24

B

146

14

18

32

A

147

12

12

24

B

148

15

13

28

C

149

-8

-14

-22

D

150

4

1

5

A

151

13

15

28

A

152

12

8

20

B

153

-11

-14

-25

D

154

8

6

14

B

155

7

2

9

D

156

6

10

16

C

Brans

130

Discipline rating

TABLE XIII Continued Total •cor* onp. key

Discipline ratine

Papsr #

Odds

157

-15

-9

-2A

D

158

17

15

32

B

159

-10

-10

-20

C

160

5

3

8

C

161

12

13

25

A

162

15

1A

29

A

163

-7

-10

-17

C

1U

-11

-10

-21

E

165

8

9

17

B

166

12

9

21

B

167

1A

15

29

C

168

9

A

13

A

169

1A

1A

28

B

170

15

18

33

A

171

2

2

0

D

172

17

15

32

C

173

3

0

3

A

m

-2

2

0

E

175

12

7

19

B

176

-10

-6

-16

E

177

0

2

2

B

178

-2

2

0

A

179

6

A

10

E

Evans

131

T A B U XIII Continued Total soore orlgl key

Dlealplln< rating

Paper #

Odda

is o

17

16

33

B

181

18

16

34

C

182

-1

0

-1

E

183

14

17

31

A

184

13

6

19

A

185

9

8

17

E

186

13

16

29

A

187

9

14

23

B

188

15

14

29

A

189

-1

-1

O

D

190

9

10

19

B

191

-10

-10

-20

D

192

9

4

13

O

193

16

15

31

A

194

18

19

37

A

195

-7

-9

-16

E

196

-9

-7

-16

E

197

13

13

26

B

196

«8

-6

-14

E

199

18

15

33

A

200

-3

2

-1

C

201

-12

-12

-24

E

202

4

2

6

D

Even*

132

TABLE XIII Continued Total sooro ongi key

Discipline rating

Paper 0

Odd a

203

16

17

33

A

204

13

17

30

A

205

17

13

30

A

206

-1

-4

-5

D

207

13

14

27

B

208

10

7

17

B

209

16

14

30

A

210

16

17

33

A

211

-€

-2

-10

C

212

-7

-6

-15

C

213

14

15

29

B

2M

16

16

32

A

215

11

10

21

A

216

-7

-12

-19

D

217

5

7

12

B

218

7

6

13

A

219

13

18

31

A

220

12

17

29

A

221

0

-5

-5

D

222

14

11

25

C

223

16

13

29

A

224

-2

-4

-6

C

225

—4

7

3

D

Brens

133

TABLE XIII Continued

Paper Evens

Total ■00 re original key

#

Odd#

226

-6

-13

-19

227

-2

-10

-12

228

13

16

29

229

-1

-2

-3

230

8

9

17

231

-4

-2

-6

232

12

11

23

233

-5

-1

-6

234

8

12

20

131

TABLE J J V SCORES AND DISCIPLINE RATINGS FOR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TKACHBtS

Odds

Evens

Total score original key

Disciplli rating

1

2

-8

-10

C

2

18

21

39

B

3

23

20

43

A

4

19

21

40

C

5

-9

-14

-23

D

6

19

19

38

C

7

17

17

34

A

8

19

23

42

A

9

12

13

25

A

10

10

11

21

C

11

20

21

41

B

12

-4

-5

-9

C

13

18

17

35

A

14

18

19

37

A

15

8

8

16

D

16

6

5

11

C

17

1

6

7

B

18

-5

-7

-12

D

19

24

24

48

A

it

*A - highest. 1/5 J B- second. 1/5 j C - middle 1/5 j D ~ next, to lowfi - lowest 1/5. 135

TABLE IIV Continued Total ■core original key

Discipline rating

#

Odds

20

11

12

23

C

21

19

14

33

B

22

17

18

35

A

23

9

11

20

C

24

18

19

37

B

25

-9

-1 1

-2 0

D

Evene

26

0

2

2

C

27

1

2

3

D

28

19

15

34

A

29

22

19

41

B

30

21

18

39

B

31

-20

-2 1

-4 1

E

32

-21

-2 1

-4 2

E

33

-18

-2 5

-4 3

E

34

3

1

4

E

35

-1 0

-1 6

-2 6

C

36

19

18

37

A

37

-20

-1 8

-3 8

D

38

17

22

39

A

-4

-6

C

39 40

18

10

34

B

41

15

16

31

A

42

-7

-11

-18

E

136

TABLE XIV Continued

Paper

Total aoore original key

Discipline rating

Odds

Evens

43

19

22

41

A

44

-1 7

-1 8

-3 5

D

45

-2 0

-1 8

-3 8

K

46

-3

4

1

E

47

16

19

35

B

48

19

19

38

A

49

8

7

15

D

50

-14

-1 7

-3 1

D

51

-6

-1 1

-1 7

E

52

-1 3

-1 3

-2 6

E

53

21

18

39

A

54

12

13

25

B

55

21

22

43

A

56

-1 0

-7

-1 7

B

57

8

6

14

B

58

23

22

45

A

59

6

7

13

B

60

21

17

38

B

61

-1 9

-1 6

-3 5

E

62

-2 3

-2 3

-4 6

D

63

-1 0

-1

-11

C

64

17

11

28

A

65

-1 9

-2 2

-41

D

#

137

TABLE H V Continued

#

Odds

Brens

Total score original key

Discipline rating

66

10

16

26

C

67

23

24

47

A

68

12

15

27

C

69

-23

-23

-46

E

70

20

19

39

A

71

13

If

29

B

72

-20

-15

-35

S

73

16

13

29

B

74

18

18

36

A

75

10

10

20

C

76

-15

-13

-28

D

77

17

18

35

A

78

-18

-14

-32

E

79

21

24

45

C

80

19

16

35

B

81

20

10

30

B

82

12

16

28

B

83

17

16

33

C

84

11

13

24

E

85

22

24

46

A

86

24

24

48

A

87

17

16

33

B

88

20

20

40

A

138

TABLE XIV Continued

§

Odda

Evana

Total aoora original kay

Dlaclpllna rating

89

-7

-5

-12

C

90

-17

-19

-36

E

91

18

18

36

B

92

20

22

42

B

93

—12

-9

-21

E

94

—2

4

2

C

95

18

15

33

4

96

20

23

43

A

97

16

19

35

E

98

10

9

19

C

99

19

16

35

B

100

-20

-22

—42

E

101

18

16

34

A

102

-1

-7

-8

D

103

-14

-11

-25

D

104

21

22

43

A

105

15

7

22

B

106

-16

-11

-27

E

107

-3

-5

C

106

19

18

37

A

109

16

16

32

A

110

2

3

5

B

111

-18

-19

-37

D

*■>

139

TABLE H V Continued

0

Odds

Evens

Total aoore original key

Discipline rating

112

22

22

44

A

113

11

17

28

C

114

-15

-15

-30

E

115

-5

^4

-9

D

116

13

17

30

C

117

15

14

29

C

118

18

23

41

A

119

-7

-4

-11

C

120

12

13

25

c

121

18

19

37

c

122

17

16

33

c

123

15

12

27

A

121

17

19

36

A

125

20

19

39

B

126

16

13

29

C

127

15

21

36

C

128

—24

-25

-49

E

129

21

18

39

C

130

20

13

33

C

131

-8

-8

-16

D

132

21

21

42

B

133

7

6

13

D

134

14

12

26

B

140

TABLE n V Continued Total ■oore orlg; key

Discipline rating

Paoer #

Odds

135

22

21

43

A

136

14

13

27

C

137

-12

-9

-21

E

138

15

8

23

C

139

17

16

33

B

140

13

13

26

A

U2

5

3

8

C

142

19

19

38

A

143

-4

O

-6

D

144

10

6

16

A

145

9

9

18

C

146

5

3

8

C

147

-15

-14

-29

D

148

1

0

1

E

M9

11

12

23

A

150

14

15

29

B

151

7

3

10

B

152

19

23

42

A

153

-5

-7

-12

D

154

-12

-13

-25

B

155

13

13

26

E

156

20

18

38

B

157

14

12

26

C

Evens

U1

TABLE XIV Continued

paper #

Odds

158

12

10

159

7

160

Evens

Total aoore origj key

Discipline rating

22

A

4

U

B

7

7

U

D

161

-17

-17

-34

D

162

13

12

25

B

163

15

18

33

C

164

24

21

45

A

165

U

11

25

C

166

-12

-12

-24

E

167

18

15

33

A

168

10

3

13

fi

169

-14

-16

-30

E

170

10

12

22

C

171

23

22

45

A

172

-17

-11

-28

E

173

12

7

19

A

174

-9

2

-7

C

175

1

-1

D

176

23

22

45

A

177

16

8

24

C

178

2

5

7

E

179

u

18

32

C

180

20

20

40

A

UZ

TABLE XIV Continued Total soors orlgd ksy

Paper #

Odds

181

IB

13

31

C

182

17

15

32

A

183

-3

-12

-15

E

184

1

8

9

E

185

22

25

47

B

186

—2

3

1

D

187

14

16

30

A

188

6

10

18

C

189

-3

-2

-5

D

190

2

-1

1

A

191

-9

-14

-23

E

192

1

-1

0

B

193

18

16

34

A

194

-16

-17

-33

E

195

17

11

28

C

196

19

17

36

C

197

9

15

24

B

198

7

5

12

B

199

11

8

19

E

200

-10

-10

-20

E

201

15

9

24

B

202

20

20

40

A

203

15

12

27

A

Evans

143

Discipline rating

TABLE XIV Continued

Paper #

Odds

Evens

Total score origJ key

Discipline rating

204

-12

-10

-22

E

205

-6

-6

-12

C

206

IB

15

33

A

207

-2

-3

-5

D

208

15

20

35

C

209

19

16

35

A

210

-16

-15

-31

D

211

10

U

21

B

212

12

20

B

213

-6

-10

D

2H

15

11

26

A

215

15

19

3A

C

216

8

13

21

D

217

10

5

15

C

218

17

13

30

A

219

-9

-1

-10

D

220

-8

-9

-17

E

221

11

1

12

A

222

-10

-8

-18

D

223

13

11

24

C

224

18

21

39

A

225

-7

-10

-17

E

226

15

U

29

A

8

LU

TABLE XIV Continued

Paper

Total •oore original key

#

Odde

227

23

22

45

228

5

9

14

229

8

11

19

230

-14

-12

-26

231

21

232

-11

-11

-22

233

20

18

38

234

17

14

31

Even*

U

145

35

TABXJt XV SAMPLE As

RATING SHTOTS FOR PRIMARY TEACHERS

108

92

95

147

388

233

291

35

389

66

176

353

284

21

366

189

150

290

191

336

377

331

190

83

379

206

87

105

141

175

79

7

59

144

352

60

270

350

158

256

99

47

169

82

330

385

296

294

72

342

226

44

129

181

34

224

49

203

360

18

374

107

332

75

114

217

246

213

70

242

315

43

204

229

74

243

325

378

155

177

171

167

264

61

318

263

253

311

184

319

24

3

168

143

39

170

201

339

361

146

TABLE XVI SAMPLE At

RATING SHEETS FOR INTERMEDIATE GRADE TEACHERS

m

171

41

100

223

118

192

88

169

12

185

14

23

82

170

164

139

115

158

214

24

107

148

152

168

6

206

86

122

34

27

92

156

230

29

62

117

83

232

218

68

225

140

13

75

229

10

63

147

90

95

8

120

187

108

174

105

113

173

128

87

56

81

151

15

20

67

180

205

210

55

135

33

60

61

227

70

213

186

65

182

43

177

193

204

157

72

138

188

97

137

18

79

228

126

91

39

31

161

199

147

TABLE XVII SAMPLE At

RATING SHEETS FOR

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS 86

180

82

120

115

206

140

92

63

18

88

108

56

83

62

u

218

105

75

27

43

214

6

170

111

70

193

68

12

137

135

173

229

223

72

67

187

174

228

UB

8

139

20

188

225

U

192

157

126

169

171

91

39

205

100

18 2

87

23

65

31

227

24

107

15

33

55

185

117

210

90

95

151

10

186

34-

164

60

122

161

61

118

168

79

213

128

13

29

138

230

204

152

156

177

232

97

158

81

113

147

199

148

TABLE XVIII SCORES OE SAMPLE Bj

Paper

#

Re-rlsed kay

RATING SHEETS FOR PRIMARY i GRADE TEACHStS

•Moat Like" oholoea •.Iona

"Least Lika* oholoea alone

RaTlaed key — •Moat Lika* oholoea

Disci­ pline rating1

100

-46

-24

-24

-23

E

344

-21

-14

-7

-14

E

317

-35

-15

-16

-15

E

84

-18

-10

-8

-9

E

27

-12

-7

-6

-7

E

346

-39

-18

-20

-19

E

174

-13

-12

2

-13

E

324

-38

-22

-14

-19

E

274

-5

2

-5

2

E

269

-22

-13

-7

-13

B

140

-37

-21

-17

-20

E

320

-27

-17

-12

-16

E

375

-1

-2

1

-1

E

119

-34

-16

-19

-15

E

26

-37

-17

-20

-17

E

77

—41

-21

-18

-21

E

333

-25

-13

-12

-12

D

104

-17

-9

-8

-8

D

130

16

2

13

eat

1/5j

* A - high#at 1/5; B* aeoond 1/5 j E - low* at 1/5 • 149

3

D

C ~ middle 1/5J D » next to low-

TABLE XVIII Continued

Paper 0

Revised key

•Moat Lika" ehoicea alone

"Leest Like" oholoea alone

Revised key- "Moat Like" oholoea

Disci— pllne rating

U6

—3-2

-A

-4

—A

D

202

10

6

A

8

C

252

25

9

17

9

C

267

27

12

U

13

C

334

13

7

6

8

C

162

18

9

8

9

C

323

39

15

23

16

C

277

-16

-6

-8

-6

C

369

21

14

9

14

C

295

20

8

10

8

C

78

15

A

10

A

111

28

34

12

15

C

31

12

6

A

8

C

383

26

16

IX

16

C

29

3

2

3

2

C

55

28

8

17

9

C

210

-28

-14

-16

-IA

C

103

LA

6

9

5

C

133

25

8

18

7

C

214

31

14

16

15

C

166

7

3

6

2

C

356

35

17

19

16

C

373

20

9

10

10

C

150

C

TABLE XVIII Continued

Revised key

•Most Like* choices alone

"Least Like" cholces alone

Revised key — "Most Like" choices

329

27

18

7

19

C

347

-11

-5

-6

-3

C

138

32

13

17

14

C

135

29

17

9

19

C

218

3

0

o

o

c

101

15

9

7

8

C

160

14

8

8

8

C

382

34

14

18

15

C

244

-io

-5

-3

-5

C

386

33

19

15

19

B

112

19

3

16

4

B

281

17

7

7

8

B

301

42

18

21

18

B

207

31

12

17

13

B

5

10

3

A

4

B

127

13

6

5

6

B

128

44

19

21

21

B

142

41

20

20

22

B

308

31

11

17

15

B

73

39

19

18

19

B

125

29

16

13

17

B

227

-9

-8

_2

-8

B

241

20

10

8

11

B

Paper #

151

Diaclpline rating

TABLE XVIII Continued

Revised key

42

24

lo

14

11

B

216

28

9

16

11

B

139

29

18

10

19

B

273

27

13

14

14

B

131

38

19

17

20

71

41

19

22

19

56

41

21

21

21

370

40

20

21

21

390

47

21

21

23

234

40

23

17

24

223

40

20

19

21

94

40

22

17

22

251

42

19

23

20

15

43

20

21

21

340

25

11

11

13

259

36

16

17

17

220

23

11

10

12

359

38

21

15

21

348

39

20

20

20

343

38

19

15

22

62

46

21

22

22

145

40

22

19

23

152

40

18

20

20

Paper #

152

"Least Like" choices alone

Revised key — "Host Like" ohoioes

"Moat Like* choices alone

Disci­ pline rating

TABLE XVIII Continued Bevlaed key •Moat Like" oholoea

Revised key

"Moat Like" oholoea alone

260

30

18

12

18

380

27

17

11

17

321

45

19

23

21

90

40

21

17

22

355

43

21

20

22

67

37

16

20

17

134

43

21

18

22

183

35

22

13

23

299

39

19

22

19

149

29

12

14

14

123

33

17

17

17

52

35

18

13

20

#

153

"Least Like* oholoea alone

Disci­ pline rating

TABLE XIX SOOKES ON SAMPLE Bi

RATING SHEETS

FOR INTERMEDIATE GRADE TEACHERS

Paper #

Revised key

•Most Like* ohoioes alone

32

-6

-5

-3

.50

E

233

-lo

-6

0

-.25

E

73

-lo

-14

5

.26

E

22

-6

-6

-1

.05

E

47

-13

-4

-6

0 • 1

•Least Like* aholoes alone

E

38

5

3

5

.12

E

103

19

8

10

.70

E

166

17

12

9

-.47

E

64

28

14

15

.64

E

42

-21

-10

-9

.40

E

198

-16

-7

-7

.11

E

101

-14

-8

-5

.32

E

226

-18

-8

-11

-.06

E

195

-19

-7

-8

-.26

E

196

-20

-5

-11

-.89

E

176

-16

-8

—8

.44

E

201

-21

-9

—15

-.33

E

40

-28

-14

-11

-.47

E

Non-dls— criminat­ ing items

Disci­ pline rating*

•A-highest 1/51 B = second 1/5 j C-middle 1/5 j D - next to low­ est 1/5 1 E-lowest 1/5. 154

TABLE U X Continued Revised key

■Least Like* choices alone

Non-dlsorimlnatIng items

Disci­ pline rating

11?

-21

-13

-9

.56

E

110

-30

-13

-15

*I no O

Paper #

■Most Like* oholees alone

E

123

-25

-13

-11

■

S1

*f 257. straightforward

««

v*ry

>

3

1

2

3

4 4

1

2

3

4

3

5

X! a

i 278. tyrannical 279. uncertain

1

2

3

5

3 3

4 4 4

1

280. understanding 281. unimaginative

1 1

2 2 2

3

4

282. unaelfish 283. uses good Judgment 284. usually disagrees with others

1

2

5 5

2

3 3

4

1 1

4

5

2

3

5

2

4 4

1

285. usually smiling 286. vain

1

2

3 3

287. versatile in interests

1

2

5 9

5

4

5

3

4

5

1 1

2 2

3

4 4

5 5

1

2

3

4

5

288. very intelligent

1

2

3

1

3

4 4

5 5

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

289. vigorous

1

2

3

2

3

5 5

4

5

4

5

2

5 5

293. well-groomed

1

2

3

4

3

4 4

1

3

2

292. wastes time

2

1 1

3 3

5

1

3

2

4

2

1

290. vindictive 291. wants to be the center of at­ traction

1

1

4 4

2 2

1

2 2

3

4

5

3

4

5

294. well-informed

1

2

3

4

5 5

295. whimsical

1

2

4

5

296. whining

1

2

3 3

4

5 5 5

275. “touchy" o n various subjects 276. treats superiors with great deference

1 1

2

3

4

5

297. witty

1

2

3

4

277. truthful

1

2

3

4

5

298. worries a great deal

1

2

3

4

N o w w e would like something in the nature of a n overall rating of this teacher, U n d e r the direction of In s o m e teachers’ classrooms children are rude. disorderly unnecessarily noisy, a n d mischievous. ocher teacher*, t h e s e ------children go about their concerns in an orderly, efficient m a n n e r . In the first type of classroom, n acher-pupil relations are such that the aims of education are constantly being thwarted f>y children's misbehavior. In the second, teacher-pupil relations are such that the aims of education are being furthered effec­ tively. N o w , h o w would the classroom relations with p u pils of the teacher you have bee n rating c o m p a r e in this respect with the classroom relations of other teachers with their pupils? In a representative group of 30 teachers in the s a m e or simiiiar grades, in which third of the group would this teacher rank as to effectiveness of classroom relations with pupils? Highest third-

— ---------------------

Middle

third

----------------------------------- ----

Lowest

third

------ ------------------ ----------------

W h a t grade or grades does this teacher teach?

M C

A o e p rJ>

Hfl CoT

0)jJp •'0

0 c0 d 0

A

v'

•Ifa a dP o J tl

0 r. OoM>t0 »*« » p fo H8 c*0 tJ H Bho S H t o t * o c C h it C B ®) a fll t * E 9 ct t* 2 9

00tr>H *. *'

rtD p q

oo e
4

e f £» cth n

p pw p

0

Ct

fl

a

H.

to

a u

p

o

©©p*4

Hfl® OPH

i

n

a

a

o

p

fl 0

|

*

JUS*

*40

0

1

H Vhl a

a

a a

liJ.

•«I•e

« *

I!

i l

i 0 fchj'4

a

8

• ••It

0 It)

P

I*»p ? o a ,Ji

a

‘' * a HH HP 4 0) hK 0 a HBOC®

44004

ii!;

©HV» k |

fl

"3

o i• • • HHA OQ 3 M

i

C04MOQ a

i

l)

P 0 H

is: HO

*4 M H

oStJSp

i • •

HUM O Q

b

a

*

a

■4 J

»

h 0 8 S 'A a opigM S OH 0 3 8 H a up

VigOMo

43fl4

3 cr o

P

« o

H

* SL o ■s d m o

4

Ji

U S."

b aaa.B aHl 3a "IIS p P OHO

t •

aa

0 P

i * h

2:3

*

• «MOQ

W J Cx P ftH 03f
H •» to

OCJttftH

••••t f

»4b p oS 0 ♦’a ooflifl HAO oph

fl ►

t

< 1

flfl

fl

titi

iW 0 M I ftS S l 0 - k kJ fl o o o w ' 4 h S°k. Ok

A9

H fl flfl

u

O f l

k»A Ado 0 . -. «R0 0 3 ^ fl k •fl4 «9 ! OkflO f l 3 ? AOOk flkOk , t A ftft H 1 . 1 ooov 0 ( •• • e * i •• 8 < o 4 wo o w 0flk

ohwoo

8a

,, fl fl00 rl M k l 'A fl ofl fl 3fl x n flft00H H fl ODOf l f l fl OOdOfl „ H

ti * 5 < < 3

a

3

0 ► fll

a3

Uf* a 3 S«9 odofl

flflflfl i1 3 ! •• • •* C O flW O Q W4W0Q a

o

U

3 5 0 flO ► 9 fk

fl

A fl•

a 3

f l»»«* A4W0Q

3 0 fl 0

kfl OO

kkk

j t i fl'tfflflu a a

woq a

hi

A«W 00

do

3

UOflkfl H

*

N 9 0 flfl do

•SJ 3

OS

BOPS ri oofl oooo o (Ok o

3 flcwon

y # tflkSflfl 'i j

fl

flkflOtf

fl flO'flijfl fl fl ^0 • n*

H a

p o o k * ) t* [V t I

fl

J * *9 4i Sfch

°8 S lr!1

k«

8 J 8 H

rfaji flfl flfl

to d

Dlflrl OflM

0 A fl

fl

fla dz «• • *»

1

pOflO A ^ WOO

f lc 00 sfiS) H

•a 5 flo flo 3 s

i

0

0

IIII I

« < WOQ

5§

MflOQ

- st l oo a o • *

1•

AW Q

0 to H fl*1 0*k'Hfl H flU s

flfl

d o*

fl S 3

t f l t dd

* % *Ah 13!! p vcrofl fl

fl

•i »• •

to

Ofl

3fl 335 il]Ofl

IS J

\i

n a

5 lifi

8 fl IS M fl 4» h k 0k fl J fl PO *fl 0 ftOkfl fl **0*

« fl (0 flfl

« o $ d

fl0flfl 0>H**fl

p s o 0 3 P P