The Development of a Needs and Problems Inventory for High School Youth

Citation preview

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION

BY

BENJAMIN SHIM BERG_______________________________ ________

e n title d

THE 'DEVELOPMENT OF A NEbDL AND PROBLEMS INVENTORY

FOR HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH_________________________________________

COMPLIES WITH THE UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS ON GRADUATION THESES

AND IS APPROVED BY ME AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ai-

Vf

i9

TO THE LIBRARIAN:------

-a#-» THIS THESIS IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS CONFIDENTIAL.

GRAD. SCHOOL FORM 9—3-49—1M

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEEDS AND PROBLEMS INVENTORY FOR HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

of

Purdue University

by Benjamin Shimberg

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

of

Doctor of Philosophy

August, 1949

ProQuest Number: 27712237

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.

uest ProQuest 27712237 Published by ProQuest LLC (2019). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346

ACKNOWLEDO-MENTS

Th.© successful completion of a large-scale investiga­ tion such as this has been calls for grateful acknowledg­ ment to the many persons who have helped and advised the writer in carrying out the project. Without the generous cooperation and firm support of Professor H.. H. Remmers this study would not have been at­ tempted. In making available the facilities of the Purdue Opinion Panel,, he enabled the writer to collect information about the problems and needs of thousands of young people all over the tr. S. The research was carried on under an XR Fellowship granted by the Purdue Research Foundation, of which G> Stanley Melkle Is Director. Professor 3. E. Wirt, Head of the Tabulating Division, helped in the planning and execution of the statistical analysis on IBM equipment. The writer Is indebted to him for numerous labor-saving suggestions as well as for many helpful criticisms concerning the general methodology. Professor Frank J. Shaw has shown great Interest in this investigation from its inception and has advised the writer on many problems relating to the clinical aspects of the Inventory. Professors John Hadley, E. J. Asher, Eliza­ beth K. Wilson, and E. R. Ryden have each contributed much to the author1s understanding of the uses and limitations of the Instrument developed. To the members of his advisory committee - Professors Remmers, Shaw, Lawshe. Burr, and Field - the writer is grateful for assistance throughout his graduate training. Finally, to his wife, Helen, the writer acknowledges what every woman knows - that without her support, criticism and editorial assistance the project would not have been completed as rapidly or as successfully as it has been.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT I N T R O D U C T I O N ............. Background.

* ............... 1

. - ..........

1

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

Prospectus.

4

A SURVEY OF .THE L I T E R A T U R E .....................

*7

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE............ '

18

Sources of Items.

18

Selection and Grouping of Items . . . . . . . . . . .

27

THE POLLING MECHANISM AND THE S A M P L E ..................... 55 The Sample.

. . .

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

The Mode of Response.

54

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

35

Obtaining Data for Classifying S t u d e n t s ...............57 Signed vs. Unsigned Questionnaires................... * 41 A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS:

METHODS AND R E S U L T S ............ 45

Effect of Signing the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . .

45

Construction of the Stratified Sample ...............

50

Procedure used in Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEMS INVENTORY . . . Internal Consistency of the Eight Areas

72

............ 73

Reliability of the Area Scores.......................... 76 Validity.

..........

...

79

Intercorrelation of Area Scores . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 Standardization and Norms............................. . 8 3 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE I T E M S . ............................ 90 Types of Items.

............................ 90

Page The "Basie Difficulty" K e y . ........................

94

The "Step Questions".............

97

THE USE AND ABUSE OP THE I N V E N T O R Y ...................... 101 A Tool in Admlni stration and Guidance . . . . . . .

101

A Group Survey Technique.

105

Limitations . . . . . . . .

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

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..........

109 112

Purpose and procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11.3

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

114

Need for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117

APPENDIX A:

MATERIALS RELATING TO COLLECTION OP D A T A ......................................120

APPENDIX B:

THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS OF NATIONWIDE S U R V E Y ........................... 124

APPENDIX C:

BISERIAL CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EACH ITEM AND THE TOTAL SCORE OF EACH OF THE EIGHT PROBLEM CATEGORIES................ 144

APPENDIX D:

THE PROBLEMS INVENTORY - REVISED FORM RESULTS ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THE REVISED ORDER OF ITEMS...................... 159

APPENDIX Ei

PERCENTILE NORMS FOR TOTAL SCORES ON EIGHT PROBLEM AREAS A ND FOR "BASIC DIFFICULTY" QUESTIONS ....................

190

INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO JUDGES WHO ASSISTED IN CLASSIFICATION OF ITEMS . . .

208

APPENDIX F:

B I B L I O G R A P H Y .............................................. SIS VITA

LIST OF TABLES

Number of Items Assigned to Bach of the Eight Categories in Preliminary Form . of Questionnaire * ........... ..

.

29

Distribution of the Total Number of "Yes* Answers to Items in House and Home Scale •

40

Distribution of Randomly Selected Signed and unsigned Ballot Cards on Three Classification Factors ...............

••

47

Distribution of Raw Differences in Proportions of problems Checked by Signed and Unsigned Samples............. ..

48

Composition of Stratified Sample of High School Students Used in Making Analysis of Results of Purdue Opinion poll #21. . *

56

Number of Items, Mean, and Standard Deviation for Eight problem Areas of Original Inventory . . . ...............

60

Comparison of Ten Biserial Coefficients of Correlation With and Without Cor­ rection for Overlap Between Item and Total Score. ............. ..

65

Wording of Statements and BI serial Correlations of the 28 Items which Were Reassigned.

67

Number of Items, Mean and Standard Deviation for Eight Problem Areas for Revised Inventory. . . . . . . . . . .

75

Distribution of Biserial Coefficients of Correlation Between Each Item and Its Area Total Score . . . . . . . . . . .

75

Reliability Coefficients for Eight Problem Areas Based on lOOOCases Drawn From A National Sample of 2500 Cases.............

78

Intercorrelation of Total Scores Among the Eight Problem Areas....................

82

Number of Cases in Each of the 16 Groups Used in Preparation of Norms . . .........

88

page XIV*

XV*

Agreement of seven Judges on Classification of Items as "Basic Difficulty" or "Problem Recognition" . . . .................

95

Vote of 12 Psychologists For or Against Inclusion of Certain Items In a "stop k e y " ..........................

99

ABSTRACT Shimb erg, Benjamins

"The Development of a Needs and Problems

Inventory for High School Youth," doctoral dissertation pre­ sented to the Faculty of Purdue University, July, 1949, 215 pages. Including 15 tables, 6 appendices,

and bibliogra­

phy of 47 references. The purpose of the Investigation was to develop a needs and problems Inventory for high school youth that would meet the conventional standards of test technology.

The projected

instrument was to be useful as a tool in guidance and as a survey technique for administrative purposes. Suitable items for the inventory were extracted from more than 500 anonymous essays about personal problems writ­ ten by students from high schools throughout the nation. Additional items were secured from a review of the literature and from other sources. a priori categories;

The Items were assigned to eight

1) school problems, 2) post-high school

problems, 5) personal problems, 4) social adjustment problems, 5) family relationship problems, 6) boy-girl problems, 7) health problems,

and 8) general problems.

The questionnaire, in check list form, was administered to more than 12,000 high school students in schools which regularly participate in the Purdue Opinion panel and to several additional schools whose cooperation was enlisted for this project.

The polling procedure made use of an IBM

mark— sensed punch card on which students indicated their

Be

ppoblems by blaolcjLiig questionnaip©«

spac®

a .e©rpespond.l.ng to th.© items on the

9Dhe data was thus in a form which could

readily be used for analysis on IBM equipment• About half of the students were required to sign the questionnaire, while the others answered anonymously*

An­

alysis showed that the response from the signed and the u n ­ signed group closely pareil ©led one another, item for item, with the unsigned group giving slightly higher percentages on nearly all items.

When tests of significance were applied

to these differences, nearly half of them proved to be sig­ nificant at the #05 level or beyond.

Since the projected

instrument was intended for use with signatures, further analysis was made of only the signed questionnaires# Results for all items were analyzed for a sample of 2500 signed eases stratified according to sea:, school grade, and religion.

The analysis showed that the responses of various

subgroups in the stratified sample were related to such fac­ tors as sex, grade in school, religion, type of community, and socio-economic status.

This indicated that separate

norms for the various sub-groups would be desirable when the inventory was standardized. Conventional test construction technology was applied to determine the homogeneity and reliability of the various problem categories.

The item analysis procedure consisted

of correlating each item (in a sample of 1000 cases) with the total score of each of the problem categories — 2400 cor­ relations In all.

The total score was derived by counting

3* ©ne point for every it©M etiecked. as a problem in a given category.

Items which correlated, relatively high with the

total score of the category to which they had been assigned were retained in that category.

There were 28 items which

were moved to other categories on the basis of information furnished by the item analysis.

This procedure "purified**

the eight categories and increased their internal consistency. After the items had been shifted, the median biserial cor­ relation of each item and the total score of the category to which it had finally been assigned ranged from .50 to .70. The reliabilities for the total scores for the eight categories were computed by Kuder^Richardson Formula, Case II, on a sample of 1000 cases and were found to range from .68 to *91 with a median reliability coefficient of #84* This indicates that the various subtests are giving consis­ tant measurement at the time that the measurement is made. No statement can be made about the stability of measurement after an interval of time.

Since an individual1s response

Is not expected to remain constant over a period of time in an Inventory of this sort, no attempt was made to estimate this type of reliability.

As yet, the Inventory has not

been validated against an external criterion.

The evidence

for its validity rests on the source and nature of the items themselves and on the Internal consistency of these Items. The intercorrelations among the total scores of the eight areas are sufficiently low to indicate that the areas are relatively independent.

The intercorrelations ranged from

4» *20 to *67.

Only six of tlie 28 intercorrelations exceed .50.

An hypothesis that at least two distinct types of items were represented was tested "by having seven professionally competent psychologists and educators classify the items as indicative either of some basic personality difficulty or mere** ly of problem recognition by the student.

The judges were a-

ble to agree on the classification of 198 of the items by at least a six out of seven vote.

They classified 101 items

as possibly indicative of some basic difficulty and 97 items as being probably more indicative of problem recognition. separate "basic difficulty" key has been prepared to give counselors some indication as to the possible significance of these items# In order to provide a quick*-screening device for students most urgently in need of counseling, a "stop key" has been developed from among the items In the inventory.

A panel of /

twelve psychologists and guidance specialists was

able to

agree by at least an eight to four vote that 15 questions were sufficiently serious and important to be included in a "stop key."

Neither the "basic difficulty" items nor the "stop

Key" has yet been validated In the counseling situation. Sixteen sets of percentile norms have been prepared so that students

various subgroups will be compared with other

students who have backgrounds similar to their own*

These

norms take cognizance of the evidence that the problems of young people vary according to factors like sex, educational level, and type of community*

5. Gmrrieulum^'bmi 1 ding and program planning require up-todate facts about the "needs" of the students In particular schools and In particular communities»

An opinion polling

technique using mark— sensed punch cards was outlined and of­ fered as an efficient and economical solution to the problem of conducting large-scale school and community surveys to ascertain the problems and needs of young people.

By having

the students mark both the question sheet and the marksensed ballot card, information about their problems is simultaneously available for counseling and for research purposes.

The mark-sensed ballot card, when processed, b e ­

comes a standard IBM punched card which can be used on all types of IBM equipment *

1, THE DEVELOPMENT OP A NEEDS AND PROBLEMS INVENTORY FOR HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH INTRODUCTION Background Tiie problems of youth have been Investigated time and again by a variety of techniques#

The methods most fre*

quently used to gain an understanding of these problems have been the interview and the questionnaire survey#

Most of

the investigations have sought information not about indi­ viduals^ but about specific groups.

In general their pur­

pose has been to determine the problems causing greatest concern to the greatest number of young people.

Results of

these surveys have repeatedly called attention to youth* s need for better recreational facilities and for more infor­ mation about jobs and work opportunities.

They have shown

that young people want help with personal problems and in matters of social adjustment.

There is little doubt that

these surveys have helped to shape educational policy.

We

have no way of knowing to what extent they were responsible for changes that have taken place, but there can be little doubt that the trend in education has been increasingly directed toward meeting the multitude of problems which the surveys have helped bring to public attention. One fact stands out as one reviews the results of the more elaborate investigations.

Despite their wealth of

factual data, they give us only a static picture of the

2. problems tiiat concerned youbli at the time the survey was made*

A striking example of this is the monumental study

carried out by the American Youth Commission during the depres** sion of the thirties.

The results of this survey are sum­

marized by Bell (4) in what is undoubtedly an important social and educational document*

The ten volume report of

the New York State Regents* Inquiry - - a study which was also conducted during the late thirties - - contains a great deal of information about the attitudes and problems of youth.

In particular, the volume in this series by Eckert

and Marshall (17) relates the problems faced by a cross sec­ tion of young people who had just left school.

Both these

investigations provided educators with the facts they needed to formulate long range educational policy.

However, read­

ing these reports today does not tell us much about the problems our young people face at the present time.

The

major dilemma confronting youth during the depression was unemployment•

The social and personal dislocations of the

period stemmed, to a large extent, from this fact*

These

reports now help us to understand how the problems of youth are constantly changing; but we need up to date facts to guide our current educational thinking.

The data of yester­

year may furnish valuable background material and may help us to measure our progress, but we need fresh facts to help us in dealing with the problems of today and tomorrow* It is in this connection that we are made aware of one of the limitations of large scale, formal surveys.

There

is no doubt that much eareful planning and painstaking analysis has gone into such studies.

The results have pro­

vided Information for top-level planning for the educational future.

However, the methods of collecting the information

and the techniques for summarizing the data gave little aid to the teacher or administrator at the lower levels in the educational hierarchy.

On the one hand, the method of col­

lecting data was generally by interview.

Such surveys can­

not be repeated readily unless a corps of trained inter­ viewers under competent supervision are retained to gather the data.

On the other hand, the procedures were not geared

to gather information about students in a particular school, although some of the American Youth Commission surveys were conducted on a community-wide basis (22).

What appears to

be needed is a survey technique which can be carried out in an economical, efficient manner to provide educators with information about the problems of students (from their own point of view) in a particular school or community.

The

full fi liment of this objective will be one of the purposes of this investigation. A second purpose will be the adaptation of survey techniques for greater usefulness in individual counseling. The growth of counseling services in our schools points to an increased need for information about specific individuals. Most of the results of large scale surveys that one finds in the literature are of little value to the school counselor. True, he needs to know about and to tinder stand the problems

of young people in general, but in the last analysis he must gain understanding of an individual student and the problems that confront that student* Ideally, the trained counselor would probably prefer to approach the student1s problems through the case history. If he is nondirectively inclined, he may wish to work with the student in talking through the problem.

unfortunately,

counseling time In most of our public schools is seveisLy limited.

The number of trained counselors falls far short

of the demand.

It is rarely possible for a counselor to

devote much time to diagnostic interviewing.

Any device

which helps to specify the range of a student’s problems may give the counselor a greater opportunity to use counsel­ ing time to optimal advantage.

Any device which helps the

counselor to locate the students In greatest need of assist­ ance may give him an opportunity to help those students solve their problems before they get into serious diffi­ culties.

in short, our second objective is an instrument

that will serve as a screening device and as a diagnostic aid to the busy high school counselor* Prospectus As we have already Indicated above, it appears desirable to develop an Instrument coupled with a survey technique which would serve the dual purpose of collecting data about group prt^lems, at the same time preserving the individual’s identity so that he may be reached by counseling services

and helped to solve his problems* This Investigation has for its goal the development and standardization of such an instrument.

By adapting certain

opinion polling techniques to this particular task, it has been possible to collect information about the problems of high school youth in various sections of the country*

The

experience gained during this study, has convinced us that the techniques we have developed are practical and economi­ cal for the purposes outlined above* The administrator will be able to get the desired facts about group needs.

He will be able to compare his group

with other groups on the basis of normative data.

If he

wishes, he may use the instrument to measure changes in his group - - thus evaluating the outcomes of curricular changes* In addition, he may want to use the data as a stimulus for in-service training of teachers in student guidance tech­ niques; or he may take the results to Farent-Teacher groups or to other civic organizations to acquaint the community with the problems and needs that his students have expressed* To meet the requirement of the teacher and counselor, the Instrument should help to focus attention on the individu al student’s major problem area; it should show how he com­ pares with his fellows; it should furnish specific informa­ tion about the things that are of concern to that student* It would also seem desirable that the instrument include some screening device to enable the counselor to pick out from the group those students who appear to be in greatest need of

assistance# A survey technique which meets these requirements should prove to be a useful tool in teaching, in counseling and in admlni stration*

However, there are other considerations

which are not to be overlooked#

From what we know about test

construction and test analysis, we should be able to design an Instrument which meets the statistical requirements of a good test#

The various sub-tests which make up the Instru­

ment, should each be relatively homogeneous so that a mean­ ingful total score may be derived for the sub-test *

The

reliability of each sub-test should be sufficiently high to justify the use of scores derived from it*

The relation­

ships of each sub-test to the others should be determined so that we will know that they are not all measuring the same thing*

Finally, we should have some Indication as to

the validity of the instrument* It is with these matters - - the design and analysis of a student problems inventory - - that this dissertation will be concerned*

A SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE To attempt to summarize the vast literature dealing with, the problems of teen-age youth would be an ambitious under­ taking#

Such a project lies outside the realm of this dis­

sertation#

While we recognize that it would be of interest

to compare the results obtained in this investigation with those reported by others, we must nevertheless forgo such comparisons.

Our results are conveniently summarized in Ap­

pendix B so that anyone who wishes to pursue this aspect of the problem may readily do so# The investigations we have selected for review and com­ ment are those which have a more direct bearing on the ob­ jectives outlined in the prospectus*

We are here more con­

cerned with methodology and applications than with the outcome of specific investigations. pursue are : problem?

some of the questions we shall

How have other Investigators approached this

What types of instruments have they devised?

To

what extent have these Instruments been used successfully in counseling or in administration?

What research has been con­

ducted with and on the instrument? Perhaps the best known of the instruments developed to Investigate student problems is the Mooney Problem Check Li st *

Over a ten year period, Mooney and his associates have

brought out a succession of forms specifically adapted to various groups. able:

At the present time the following are avail­

8e

Junior High School Form (33) - grades 7*9; contains 210 items, 30 in each of 7 areas* High School Form (34) «*• grades 9**12; contains 330 items in each of 11 areas* College Form (32) - * contains 330 items in each of 11 areas* School of Nursing Form (36) - contains 364 items, 28 in each of 13 areas* Form for rural Young People (5) ** for rural youth ages 16**30* Contains a 50 item on socio-economic status; lists 330 problems, 30 in each of 10 areas. We obviously cannot discuss each of these*

However,

since they are all essentially similar, a general description should suffice* According to Mooney (31) the original items were se­ lected from a master collection of over 5,000 problems*

These

were accumulated mainly from interviews with students and counselors, from case history materials, from a review of the literature, and from content analysis of student essays (35 P • 1 )• The 330 items in the high school form are grouped under the following categories; 1* 2* 3* 4* 5* 6* 7* 8* 9* 10* 11*

Health and Physical Development Finances, Living Conditions, and Employment Social and Recreational Activities Courtship, Sex, Marriage Social-Psychological Relations Personal-Psychological Relations Morals and Religion Home and Family The Future • Vocational and Educational Adjustment to School Work Curriculum and Teaching procedures

In filling out the check list, the student first goes through all the items, which are arranged in a mixed order, underlining those which he considers to be his problems*

9, He th.en goes tkipougli ttie list a second, time, encircling tlae numbers of tiie items that he considers as his most important problems.

Space is provided at the end of the check list

for free writing about problems not specifically stated* Separate norms are available for men and women showing the percentile distribution of problems marked on the entire questionnaire.

The average number of items checked in each

area and the rank order of the areas are also reported* One could compile an extensive bibliography of the in­ vestigations in which the Mooney check lists have been used in educational research.

We shall cite only a few of the

studies to indicate some of the uses to which the instrument has been put*

Mooney (30) has studied the problem differ­

ences among students in five communities*

He found evidence

that community conditions affect the personal problems of youth.

Combs (9) made an intensive study of the major prob­

lems of high school students in a midwestern community (Alliance, Ohio)*

h

© discusses his results in terms of the

50 leading items and the 25 trailing items, pointing out trends in the responses at various grade levels* The check list has also been used to evaluate and modify curricula by Chun (8), Cowan (10), and Young (45).

Bender

(5) has used the instrument in planning rural youth programs. Mooney departs from many of the traditional methods of test construction in his development of the instrument.

He

states that "The check list is not to be thought of as a test (31 p. 4)*"

He argues that there is no set score in the

10.

check list which has an automatic inference.

Instead, the

scores are merely counts of the number of problems that a student has marked.

They provide a rough index as to the

areas in which the most concerns are marked. Inasmuch as the concept of a test has been rejected, the usual statistical criteria for test development are not furnished.

No statistical evidence is available regarding

the homogeneity of the problem areas, nor are data provided concerning the interrelationships among the various areas. Mooney asserts that the traditional concepts of validity and reliability Eire not applicable.

He contends that personality

tests, for example, are designed to predict relatively stable patterns of behavior.

For this purpose, he says, stability

of response (reliability) is desirable.

The check list,

on the other hand, does not try to predict specific patterns of behavior and the stability of response is not an adequate criterion of dependability (35 p. 5).

Inconsistency in mark*»

ing items from one administration to another is considered neither good nor bad, but merely presents new information to be used in following the changes in an individual or group (31 p . 6 ). The foregoing discussion of reliability, drawn from Mooney, appears to be based on the assumption that there is only one kind of reliability - that which extends through time.

Cronbach (12) has defined four kinds of reliability,

one of which is **... the degree to which the test score in­ dicates the status of the individual at the present instant

11*

In tbe general and group factors defined by *bh.e test (12 p# 6 )", According to this concept of reliability, we are not concerned with, the changes that may occur when the same test or an equiv­ alent form of the test is administered after a stated time interval.

The reliability estimate indicates the stability of

the test at a given instant.

This type of reliability would

seem to be applicable in this case, for while we need not con­ sider a change in response after a period of time as an indie a* tion of unreliability, we do want some evidence that the measurement that we are making right now is a reliable one. We have devoted considerable time to a discussion of the Mooney check lists because they represent an impressive ef*fort to develop a device suitable for group surveys as well as for individual counseling.

Since the inventory we have

developed is in some respects similar to the Mooney check list, it is important that the underlying assumptions of the Mooney instrument be made clear so that the differences will be apparent. The Bell Adjustment Inventory (3) has also been widely used both as a problems inventory and as a personality test. The student edition consists of 140 simple incidents to be answered by encircling **yes% "no* or tf?w. contains 160 items*

The adult form

Pour-part scores serve as measures of

home, health, emotional and social adjustment.

The items

are arranged in a mixed order and scoring is done by a special key for each of the four areas.

The manual which

accompanies the instrument states that the test—retest

12.

coefficients of reliability of the separate sections range from #80 to #89, The Adjustment Inventory has been validated against existing personality tests, by a group diference technique, and by methods based on internal consistency.

Parley (13)

summarized the validity studies with the following comment: Pragmatically a good personality test is one which identifies, in its additive score or in its individual items, areas of actual or poten­ tial maladjustment for further diagnosis and treatment. If a test picks out a high propor­ tion of adjustment difficulties which a good clinician finds actually existed In the case, and if it misses a small proportion of such difficulties, it Is useful in a personnel pro­ gram. The Adjustment Inventory meets this criterion, (13 p. 52) Pederson (37) studied the validity of the Adjustment Inventory when applied to college women.

The scores in the

various areas were compared with college records and with ratings by a social counselor and the Director of physical Education.

The home adjustment score failed to predict

home disturbances adequately.

No real differences were

found between the emotional scores of students rated emotion­ ally maladjusted and other Individuals.

The inventory suc­

cessfully picked out those students with poor health adjust­ ment.

The social adjustment score agreed with the ratings

of students on social adjustment by the social counselor. To facilitate using the inventory, separate sex norms are provided for high school and college groups,

A table

of probable errors of measurement is included to help in the interpretation of borderline cases.

The norms are not the

15* Usual percentile norms, but describe levels on the test in such qualitative terms as "excellent",

"good", "average*,

"unsatisfactory” and "very unsatisfactory*. The test is intended to be used as a screening device and as a diagnostic interviewing aid.

It makes no attempt

to cover the whole range of teen-age problems, concentrating instead on the personality-type items related to adjustment. Purdom (40) at the university of Michigan has developed a piagnostic Informâtion Blank for High School Students and College Freshmen. (59)

Intended primarily as an interview­

ing aid, the questionnaire consists of 84 free-answer and multiple-choice items. gories;

The items are grouped into 16 cate­

Education, Recreation and Amusements., Definite Pur­

pose, Initiative, Associates, Habits, Family Life, Teacher Relationships, Health, Early Overstimulation, Finances, Religion, Sex, Emotions, Fear, and Jealousy.

The blank is

designed to give the counselor critical information about an individual's adjustment so that he may be in a better position to understand the dynamics of the individual case. The instrument was developed by analyzing the responses of 700 juniors and seniors at the university of Michigan over a three year period (1923-1925).

Students were asked

to relate the things they considered the causes of their unhappiness, failure, and inability to adjust to their sur­ roundings.

The responses were tabulated under the 16 head­

ings listed above.

The questions in the inventory were

designed to obtain from the students the information covered

by the 16 categories# Dr. Purdom reports that the Information blank has been administered to about a half million students, mainly at the University of Michigan and at several military schools.* The blank Is administered to groups of students after Its purpose has been explained and they have been assured that no person, other than the one who administers the blank to the group, will have access to the Information. Interpretation of the blank Is done subjectively, each response being rated on a five point scale.

The author

states that after a few weeks of training, a group of 60 students who were to use the questionnaire for counseling were able to agree on the meaning of the answers in 87 per cent of the cases (40 p. 73). As evidence of the usefulness of the questionnaire, Purdom presents data to show that in one high school trained persons using the information blank plus interviews were able to list five times as many problems bothering students as could be listed by teachers or parents. on 194 students.

Data were collected

The trained workers listed a total of

1025 problems, while the parents and teachers knew of only 295 problems (40).

The exact procedure for collecting in­

formation from parents and teachers is not described.

it

Prom a letter written by Dr. Purdom to the author, January 18, 1949.

15.

Tlie Purdom Inventory has not been standardized and no published data are available regarding Its statistical characteristics*

By its very nature it is u n suited for ex­

tensive survey work.

It is primarily an interviewing aid.

Doane (15) has investigated the needs of youth for purposes of curriculum planning*

He points out that the

term "needs* has a variety of meanings, depending on the orientation of the person stating them*

He proposes the fol­

lowing classification of needs; 1.

Faults or shortcoming of society which, for the benefit of youth, need to be remedied by social action*

2*

Lacks or shortcomings of youth as Indivi­ duals, as they are or may become, with respect to the adult view of what they should be now or in the future, intellect­ ually, morally, physically, etc., which need to be met by education, parental in­ fluences, or other youth training agencies. To these was assigned the term predicated needs*

5#

Psycho-biological needs: the psychological and biological drives to learning and other behavior* (15 p. 113)

The definition of "needs" listed under f2 f has usually been the basis for curriculum planning, according to Doar^ It is his contention that "predicated needs* do not neces­ sarily tie-in with the psycho-biological needs from whence all motivation springs. To determine the "needs" related to the psycho—bio­ logical motivation of the Individual, Do are prepared two Instrument s.

The first was a descriptive listing of 19

courses" attractively outlined as they might be in a catalcg

16e **

each, description enumerating the topics that would he

covered in the course#

Each "course" was designed to in­

dicate to the youth some promise of help in meeting a "need of youth" commonly described in literature on ado­ lescence#

Twelve of the courses represented personal ad­

justment problems* three represented social problems and social information, and four represented other subjects or other common areas of interest# Students were asked to imagine themselves in a school for one year in which only the 19 "courses" were offered, any five of which they could take#

They were directed to

choose the five they would like most to take and the five they would least want to take.

A second instrument, con­

sisting of 159 items or topics, listed all the items or topics previously included under the 19 "courses"• dent could check as many of these as he wished#

The stu­

It was

thus possible for them to make separate choices on each item, instead of being required to choose or reject an entire area# The questionnaire was administered to 2069 students in high schools in urban and rural communities# downs are presented for all questions,

Detailed break­

showing responses by

sex, age, and urban-rural residence. Doane reports that the area of greatest concern to the total group was clearly that of vocational choice and place­ ment.

Help in developing social abilities ranked next, with

a desire to consider questions relating to dating and court­ ship ranking third.

17e The methods devised T?y Doane are novel.

They represent

an attempt to plomb the depth of psych-biological motiva­ tion in young people and to adapt the curriculum to meet their expressed and recognized needs.

This is a far cry

from the curriculum based on predicated needs which may be quite unrelated to the needs which the young people them­ selves are willing to accept. The range of specific problems presented in the question­ naire is somewhat restricted, although the overall coverage appears to be comprehensive.

The technique is designed ex­

pressly for school and community survey work rather than for individual counseling.

As far as this writer knows, the

instruments developed by Do a m have not been made available commercially. In this section we have considered only a few of the instruments and techniques that have attempted to accomplish objectives somewhat similar to those that have been outlined in our prospectus. merit discussion.

There are undoubtedly many others which However, the examples already cited should

prove sufficient to illustrate some of the ways in which this problem has been attacked in the past and what some of the results have been.

18.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE On© of ttie features of problem questionnaires for young people most frequently criticized is tbeir lack of autiien*» ticity from the viewpoint of the group for which they are intended to serve.

Too frequently, as Doane (15) has pointed

out, such questionnaires have expressed what adults conceive to be the problems that young people face.

To overcome this

objection, an effort was made to find out about the problems of high school youth by going directly to the students and asking them to relate their problems in their own words.

A

review was also made of earlier investigations which were based on direct interviews or the collection of documentary materials from the high school or post-high school group. Sources of Items The primary source for the items used in the Student Problems Questionnaire was a group of anonymous essays col­ lected from students in schools participating in the Purdue Opinion Panel.

A letter (see Appendix A) was sent to about

120 schools soliciting cooperation.

About 40 schools re­

sponded with a total of more than 500 essays.

A number of

schools which did not wish to participate wrote to explain that there was no time or that students were not Interested in the project* In the letter (see Appendix A) teachers were asked not to structure the situation any more than was necessary. They were asked to read the following directions to the class:

19. The Purdue Opinion poll for Young People want a to find out what problems are of greatest concern to high school students. Here Is your chance to make known some of your Ideas. Write a page or two about the things that bother you and other teen-agers - - your real problems. These d o n 11 nee©ssarily have to deal with school. They could be personal problems, home problems, social problems or anything else that is important to you or to teen-agers in gen­ eral. Do not sign your name. We want you to be frank and sincere. Your ideas will help all of us to understand teen-agers better* That the schools which participated made a sincere ef­ fort to get the honest opinions of their students is indi­ cated by the frankness with which the students expressed themselves and by the efforts which teachers made to assure their students that anonymity would be preserved.

Several

teachers wrote to explain the mechanics they had set up. One teacher encouraged her students to type the essays at home so that no handwriting identification would be pos­ sible.

Another passed around a large envelope into which

students placed their essays.

He then sealed the envelope

in the presence of the class and gave it to a student for mailing.

Such measures, it would seem, are in large meas­

ure responsible for the excellent response from the students themselves. As for the essays, there was a considerable range of talent represented.

Some students could express themselves

better than others; some had greater insight into what was meant by a problem and what their problems were.

The mat­

ters discussed ranged from the trivial to the near-tragic.

20 s

Very few essays were facetious*

Some students were con­

cerned only with, themselves and with the immediate present, while others were concerned with the future and with prob­ lems of peace and prejudice* To preserve for the record a few samples of what the students had to say, we shall reproduce a number of excerpts from fairly typical essays* onthe one hand, by an

The extremes are represented,

essay from a girl who professed to

have no problems at all and on the other

by

one from a girl

who found herself

in a serious predicament*

The girl who

felt that she had

no problems, wrote as follows ;

It will come as a great shock, no doubt, to a majority of you adults to learn that some teen­ agers have no problems whatsoever. I do not have any; many of my friends do not have any problems either. Even if we did, we would be talking things out with our parents, not nMr. Anthony-ingn any other adult. Do not take this in a poor light. Adults are very necessary. The only complaint I would make against you is that you classify all youth of certain ages as teen-agers then proceed to give us a common language and common problems. Let me name a few of the difficulties with which you saddle us; smoking, drinking, carrying on far into the night, neglecting our studies, main­ taining teacher complexes, aiding in poor home relations. I will admit that there are a great number of youth today who are bothered by some of the above problems. Many cannot help themselves. They either lack some quality in themselves to love life and live cleanly, or they lack a good outside Influence. The first of these deficien­ cies is dealt with by the youth himself. He does not know what makes him drink, or hate teacher Brown, or leave his school studies until the last minute. He is unhappy because he has a problem. Mostly, that problem is himself. The second of these needs is mainly a result of poor family relations. A young person* s castle is his home. If parents fail to make that evident then the

21. youth, turns to the pool*»hall and street corners to reign. But who can blame parents for being restrictive and suspicious when their offspring will not meet them half ••way ? Further on in her letter she repeats her original con** tentions X have no problems. My parents are kind and considerate. They let me know their plans, yet they are not dictatorial. It is easy for us to talk together. My younger brother is not the ^little monster11 so many teen-agers like to de­ pict ; my older brother, aged sixteen, is as con­ genial as any boys are. My school studies are not neglected. X know my weaknesses and try to act on intelligence accordingly. It would be an untruth to say that I never undertake more than I can finish. This is a common fault of even adults, so it does not worry me. By way of contrast • I do not consider byself an average teen­ ager; but perhaps many others do not either. I am seventeen and a senior in high school. One of my biggest problems has been for a long time. When I was nine years old my father had a nervous breakdown and entered a state in­ stitution. This was and still is very shameful to me. I don»t know what to answer when people ask the whereabouts of my father. people say it is silly to feel this way; but I c a n 11 help it. When this happened we lost our former home and have been continually reduced to lower standards of living. My older brother first was put in a reformatory and then in a state institution also. He has been out on parole once or twice but can­ not seem to recover himself. My feelings toward this and my present home make me self-conscious and unsure. I am ashamed to ask people to my home, especially boys. My older sister is very intelligent and makes me feel lower than she. My younger sister is very antagonistic about everything and hates me most of the time. Because of this I seek affection elsewhere. I am at the present four months pregnant and do

22o

not have any intention of marrying. I propose to go away and finish high school next year. My mother married for this reason and it was a mis­ take I don't intend to make. My father had his nervous breakdown because his mother told him he was not her son. She died before revealing the identity of his father. So we do not really know who we are. I sometimes wonder who the unknown parent w a s . For although my mother is not very intelligent, my three sis­ ters and both my brothers showed great intelli­ gence and ability to do anything. My sister might he called a genius by some. She says she has no problems that she con­ siders problems as nothing overwhelms her; but I am different and do think I have problems. Common teen-age problems are dates or money, looks or personality. These are important, but many are deeper. By comparison, the problems of most high school students seem trivial.

To the individuals concerned, however, even

seemingly minor problems may cause considerable concern and anxiety.

Here are a few excerpts from essays which empha­

size the problems of vocational choice and college prepara­ tion.

A high school senior wrote the following: Today there are so many people going to over­ crowded colleges and there is so much competition in the colleges that if you are not sure what you are after, and really want, you will accomplish nothing until you decide. But how are we to decide? Should we go to college with a vague idea of what we would like to do or what? There are, X know, many books on vocations and career choosing but they have not seemed to have helped me much* What we need are opportunities to help us know for what we are best suited so we can decide what we want to choose as our career and then, prepare for it. Here is a girl's dilemma; As a teen-age girl one has many problems. One of the most important is what I shall do in the future. I cannot decide whether to choose college and a career or merely get a job after high school

23 and wait for my dream-man to come along. I have in mind several vocations which appeal to me but I do not know whether or not I will enjoy m y work and succeed in it. If I choose marriage how could I be sure I was choosing the proper mate and would be happy all my life? This is, indeed, a difficult problem. Here a 16 year old senior laments his lack of work ex-* perience; I have a problem which, to me, is quite seri­ ous. I would like to get a part-time job. I do not have many qualifications for one, such as experience of which I have none, I cannot type, take shorthand or any other commercial subject. I am 16 and old enough, and I am a senior in high school. Most places refuse to accept part-time people if they have not had experience. I would like to know how I can get experience, necessary for a job. I would also like to know what kind of work is best to apply for when applying for a job. How much salary should I expect from a parttime job? Another boy had this observation to make; There are so many fields open today but also so much competition in each that it is difficult to decide just what one wants to do. I am told we will be given an aptitude test sometime this year, but I think this is rather late. Why couldn11 they have been given a year ago? Had they been given then we would have some idea now as to what we would like to choose for a career. From what students had to say about their parents in the essays, we would expect parent-child conflicts to be a major problem area.

The following two excerpts present only

a few of the more commonly mentioned complaints. I cannot talk things over with my parents freely. As far as having a mutual under standing with them is concerned there seems to be an In­ visible barrier between us. I get along quite well with them, but I could not talk to them about sex education for instance; they would be shocked. I s n ft there some way that my generation could be taught to cope with their future children* s prob­ lems?

24. At some times my parents can be very under­ standing but when their moods change so does their willingness to listen to my problems. The latter is usually the case. As a result of this, I either discuss my problems with a teen-age girl friend or keep them bottled up within myself. Be­ cause of this, my problems are never really dis­ cussed and worked out in the best possible way. A protest frequently heard from teen-agers is that parents do not give them a chance to make up their own mind about anything. My parents have the idea that I am not old enough to decide anything for myself. Maybe they do have a basis for this, but I do believe that I know enough to come in out of the rain. But, they d o n ,t even give me that much credit. They feel they should tell me what to do all the time and if I tell them I can manage without their ad­ vice they get indignant. They tell me that I should have more respect for them. Of course, I assure them that I do, but it would make me feel they have some respect for my seventeen years if they would let me decide a few things for myself. Another source of friction arises when youngsters differ with their parents about vocational goals. My mother objects to my goals. Every time I want to try to learn to be a mechanic, a veterin­ arian, or anything else that interests me, my mother will object. She has one desire and that is to have me become a bookkeeper. If there is anything I hate it is a job In a stuffy office. If my mother would only give in sometimes (like I have to) everything would be all right. Under the broad heading of dating come a variety of com­ plex problems from the simplest types of boy-girl relation­ ships to questions of sexual mores, courtship and marriage. One fairly articulate senior wrote the following; When should I marry? I intend to go to col­ lege for at least four and possibly five years. I have read articles on marriage that tell about instances where a couple had refrained from "petting"

25

completely because they did not want illicit rela­ tions and as a result, were all most void of sex and consequently were unhappy in marriage. In another instance a couple did have illicit rela­ tions and as a result of* that, they were unhappy when they married. The remedy, the articles said, was not to stop petting, and not to have illicit relations, but to get married then and there, I don1t want the unhappiness of either situation, and yet I cannot afford to marry while still in college. What should I do ? My knowledge about sex is practJeally nil. I have heard that many marriages go onto the rocks because of the lack of sexual knowledge, and that there is much unhappiness generally because of the lack of this knowledge. Is there some way of teaching a course about sex to the advantage of all? A ninth grade girl wrote MMy greatest problem11 at the top of her short essay.

This is her discussion*

I am still young but I am terribly afraid of what is to come. My girl friends and I when we are together often discuss the facts of life, I believe we have a right to know all about it, but no one seems to think we are ignorant of it. My sister and her friends talk about having child­ ren and that it is painful and terrible, I want to have children some day but I am afraid of what it means. My mother explained the menstruating period to me but not thoroughly enough. The schoo^. takes no interest, it seems to me. Some places they have lectures and offer informa­ tion on the subject. We would like to understand, but I wouldn1t ask anyone• This has given me a chance to try and receive some help. A tenth grader in the same school - also a girl - refers to sex education along with a number of other problems : I d o n 11 know if this would be called a prob­ lem but its about sex education, I have been told just enough to make me curious and eager to know

26. more about it. I know there are others who are in the same boat as X. X think, in order for lots of us not to learn the hard way, it would be a good idea to have a course in sex education. The final excerpt is from a girl who is a classmate of the 17 year old senior who was four months pregnant. I wish there was some decent way of learn­ ing the meaning of love and the feeling between a man and woman or girl and boy when they are in love besides smutty jokes and weird stories you hear around the school. This thing is too serious and sacred to be treated as a crime if you know it and a crime if you don11 . Too often the mis­ takes made between a boy and a girl is because their parents or the schools did not educate them to where they knew right from wrong. I shall have to admit that all the sex education I ever received was from the talk of my schoolmates and books I have read. X am still so bewildered that some­ times I wonder if anybody really does know the right sex relationship one should acquire and follow. This is one reason why many of us decide to follow our own code and too often it turns out to be the wrong one. By means of content analysis the problems mentioned in the essays were tabulated and summarized.

These data made

up the basic pool of items from which the questionnaire was constructed.

In phrasing the items, we tried to adhere

as nearly as possible to the language in which the students had expressed themselves. In order to insure the widest possible coverage of teen-age problems, a search was made of the literature for results of empirical investigations.

A number of investiga­

tions were found in which interviews, case history materials, and anonymous essays had been used as the primary sources of data.

Among such materials were the work of Bell (3,4),

Eckert and Marshall (17), Purdom (39), Doane (15), Mooney (31),

27, Erickson (20), Elias (19) and. others# Materials of a secondary nature were also scanned, prim­ arily as a further check on the adequacy of coverage#

When­

ever an idea was found which seemed to belong in the question­ naire, it was added to the pool of items.

Acknowledgment is

hereby made to the authors listed above for any problem suggestions that may have been drawn from the reports of their investigations.

The comprehensive coverage of the question­

naire is due in large measure to the availability of earlier research dealing with the same area of study. Selection and Grouping of Items The pool of items from which the final selection was to be made consisted of more than 700 problems covering the widest possible range of topics. The items were grouped and regrouped a number of times by the writer in an effort to establish a series of categories which would fit the material.

With the aid of two other

psychologists eight broad problem areas were finally agreed upon as adequate to cover the range, although it was clearly recognized that some items would have to be dealt with arbitrarily. problems

The eight problem areas were;

2) post—high school problems

ment problems

3) personal adjust­

4) social adjustment problems

relationship problems

1) high school

6) boy-girl problems

5) family 7) health prob­

lems and 8) general problems. The number of items that would be included in the

28. questionnaire as well as the form of response was to a con­ siderable extent determined by certain mechanical considera­ tions involved in the method by which the survey was to be conducted.

Since the mark-sense ballot card on which answers

were to be recorded allows a maximum of 524 responses, the number of items had to be limited to 500 if a single—response type answer was used, or to 150 items if a "yes" "no" answer was used.

The remaining spaces were required for recording

classification data about each respondent.

The possibility

of using more than one ballot card for each student was con­ sidered as a means of overcoming the restrictions imposed by the single card.

However, the use of more than one card

would have presented many complications, the most serious being the difficulty involved in keeping the cards of each student together.

For these reasons we decided to use only

one ballot card on which students would record their answers to 500 single response items.

This restriction meant that

in essence the questionnaire would be in check list form. To facilitate the analysis of results on International Business Machine (IBM) sorting and tabulating equipment, a further restriction was imposed on the number of items that could be placed in any category.

Since there are twelve

response spaces in each column on the mark-sen se card, the number of items in any category was limited to multiples of twelve.

Bach category began at the top of a column and

ended at the bottom of a column, thus avoiding split columns. With these limitations in mind, the author selected the

29» 300 Items wiiicli appeared to laave ttie greatest face validity and which promised to give the most comprehensive coverage of the problems faced by the teen-age group.

The selection

and grouping of items were reviewed by two other psycholo­ gists and a number of changes were mutually agreed upon. The titles and the number of items in each category are shown below in Table I. TABLE I Number of Items Assigned To Each Of Eight categories In Preliminary Form Of Questionnaire

Descriptive Titles

Number of items In Category

About Me and My School

36

After High School ???

36

About Myself

48

Getting Along With Others

36

My Home, My parent, & I

48

Boy Meets Girl

36

Health

24

Things in General

36

The items were carefully edited so that each idea was presented as a complete sentence - either as a statement or as a question.

The wording was such that checking an item

meant that the individual recognized the problem as one of the

30 e

things that was "bothering him*

The exact wording of the

directions to students, and the wording of the 300 question­ naire items are given in Appendix B«

The directions for ad­

ministrators which accompanied each set of questionnaires are presented in Appendix A*

The directions state explicit­

ly that the student is to mark an item if it expresses the way he feels.

They also state:

,!If this is not one of your

difficulties, you will not make any mark on your ballot card, but go on to the next statement.

Remember, when you do not

check a statement on the ballot card, you are saying 1This does not apply to me. 1 11 Implicit in the directions is the recognition of a possible influence of a response set and an attempt to off­ set such an influence.

Cronbach (11) has defined response

set as "any tendency causing a person consistently to give different responses to test items than he would if the same content is presented in a different form (11 p. 476)."

No

experiments have been conducted to determine the existence or nonexistence of a response set in the answers of students to this questionnaire, but the evidence in the literature cited by Cronbach would lead us to expect this behavioral phenomenon to be present in a check list of the type we have developed. Sherif and Cantril (42) have discussed the topic of response set in terms of "frames of reference."

The follow­

ing excerpts provide a further indication of how this phesuch nomenon might operate in an instrument/as this ;

31e ...in the absence of an objective scale (frame) and objective standard (reference p o i n t ) each individual builds up a scale of his own and a standard within that scale# The range and ref­ erence points established by each individual is peculiar to himself when facing the situation alone...Once a scale is established there is a tendency for the individual to preserve this scale in subsequent sessions (within a week in the se experiments)•.• •..these frames and points of reference are by no means always confined to consciously accepted instructions or imposed norms, but can become established without an individual’s realization of it. (42 52 p# 319; 53 p. 2) Cronbach concludes that response sets are reduced by any procedure that increases the structuration of the test situation#

He states, "The best procedure appears to be

to adopt an item form which does not invite response sets, wherever that can be done without hampering measurement » The multiple-choice pattern appears to be the only generally useful form that is free from response set (11 p* 488)•" The possibility of using a forced-choice type of item in the problems inventory was considered in the early stage of the present investigation.

This item type probably

would have reduced response set, but it would have seriously interfered with the kind of measurement we wished to make# By limiting the number of problems a student could check, either through the multiple-choice or forced— choice type of item, the results would have been less useful to the teacher or counselor who wished to know all the problems which might be bothering the student#

in either of these methods, the

student would not have been free to indicate all his problems. He would have been forced to choose among alternatives, even

when all of the alternatives might apply. The whole matter of response set, as it affects this inventory, needs further investigation.

For example, the

directions themselves may establish a set.

It would not be

difficult to modify the directions so that a student checked the items that were not his problems.

A comparison of such

results with those obtained under the original directions would give at least some indication that the directions might be influencing the responses.

Other possible factors which

may influence responses might be investigated under experi­ mental conditions.

The ultimate usefulness of the instrument

and the interpretation of the norms may hinge to a consider­ able extent on what influence response set is found to have*

33* THE POLLING MECHANISM AND THE SAMPLE The operation of the Purdue Opinion Panel has been described in detail by Gage (83).

A brief recapitulation of

the main features will suffice to give those unfamiliar with the poll an understanding of its methods* The Purdue Opinion Panel (formerly known as the Purdue Opinion Poll for Young People) is a paper and pencil polling organization that has been studying the opinions of high school students since 1943*

Originally the poll was conduct­

ed only among students in Midwestern states*

It gradually

expanded to states out side the Midwest and finally, in 1947, encompassed a nationwide sample of high school youth*

Un­

til 1948, the poll was supported by a per capita subscription fee collected from participating schools and by a subsidy from Purdue University. During the year 1948-1949, the poll has been financed from Income received from the sale of a weekly syndicated newspaper column,

"Citizens of Tomorrow Speak*"

The per—

capita subscription fee of six cents per student has been retained*

The poll questions are administered by classroom

teachers to intact groups.

No restriction is placed on the

selection of the groups of students to be polled, although schools are encouraged to administer the poll to students at all grade levels*

The Sample It is pertinent at this point to relate how schools become members of the Purdue Panel and to note some of the Implications which the method of selection may have as far as the results of these surveys are concerned*

Invitations

to participate in the Purdue Panel are sent to several thousand high schools, tories*

selected at random from school direc­

Those schools which wish to take part, pay a sub­

scription fee of six cents per pupil, which entitles them to take part in three or more polls each year and to receive complete reports both on their own students and on students from all sections of the nation*

Gage (23) has pointed out

several of the possible limitations of this type of self­ selected sample. It is probable that this method of selecting the sample introduces certain elements of bias, as related to high schools in general, in that the schools subscribing to the poll are characterized by indeterminate differences from unselected schools in financial ability to pay for the poll and, more importantly. In interest in the type of educational enterprise exemplified by the Poll. The latter factor probably operates, again in In­ determinate fashion, to select only schools and perhaps communities that are sufficiently pro­ gressive in educational outlook to be interested in and willing to use a relatively new type of educational instrumentality. Any conclusions drawn from the present investigation must there­ fore be restricted to only those schools and com­ munities of the type that participate in the POPYP*.•(23 p. 29) The foregoing remarks apply to the sample used in the present investigation.

Although the sample is still self­

selected, certain refinements in technique have been adopted

35e wiiicli reduce to some extent ttie possible bias introduced by using in to to tbis type of sample»

Ttie major innovation

has been the use of a stratified sample for the purpose of analysing results.

From the more than 10,000 ballot cards

returned in each poll, a sample of about 3,300 cards are selected so as to reflect as closely as possible the distri« but ion of high school students by grade, sex, and region. It is not known precisely how this stratified sample might compare with an unselected sample of high school students, but it is not unlikely that a sample of such sige and dis** pension is fairly typical of high school youth in general» The questionnaire covering the problems of high school youth was sent to 120 schools as an "extraw poll; that is, it was given to the schools without charge in addition to the three regular polls for which they had paid a sub scrip** tion fee.

In addition to the regular purdue panel partici­

pants, three large urban high schools were invited to take part in this special poll.

Two of the schools were in the

Chicago metropolitan area, and one was in Toledo, Ohio. These schools augmented the regular sample of urban youth which has in the past occasionally proved to be inadequate when some of the regular urban subscribers failed to return their ballots. The Mode of Response As we have already suggested in our discussion of the factors which determined the numbers of items that could be

36» msed, the responses of the students are recorded on marksensed IBM cards.

This technique which had previously been

used in industry, was adapted to opinion polling by Gage and Remmers (24) and has been used by the Purdue Panel since 1946.

Each item on the question sheet is followed by a

unique number and letter combination.

To check an item as

a problem, the student blackens a space on the IBM mark— sense ballot card which corresponds to the number and letter of the item.

The Purdue Panel furnished the participating

schools with the special electrographic pencils necessary for marking these cards.

Each pencil mark is converted in­

to a punched hole on the card by means of the IBM reproduc­ ing ]punch*

The punched cards can then be sorted and counted

on the IBM counting sorter or tabulated on the IBM alpha­ betic and numeric tabulating machine. That students encounter little or no difficulty in using the mark-sense ballot card is Indicated by the very small proportion of cards (less than one per cent) that had to be discarded for students failure to follow directions. When possible, even these cards were salvaged byre^marking them in the proper manner.

All cards were inspected visu­

ally after they had been punched.

Whenever cards were found

with marks too faint to be picked up by the mark-sensing punch, the cards werere-marked and sent through the punch a second time to insure that all items that the student had checked appeared as punched holes on the ballot card.

37, Obtaining Data For Classifying Students Before beginning to answer the questions dealing with their problems, the students were required to answer cer~ tain questions about their own backgrounds.

This informa**

tion was used both in setting up the stratified sample and in making the analysis of the responses of various sub** groups to the questionnaire items.

The exact form and word­

ing of these background information questions may be found on the face sheet of the questionnaire booklet.

The items

are repeated here primarily to explain what cut-off points were used in establishing certain dichotomies and how cer­ tain of the groups were combined to facilitate analysis 1.

Are you a boy or a girl? w Boy

2.

Girl

Which school grade are you i n ? __ Grade 9 Grade 10 2 Grade 11 2 Grade 12 2 Post Graduate

Results were analyzed for each grade separately.

Stu­

dents who indicated that they were taking post-graduate work were counted as being in the 12th grade, 5,

Which religion do you prefer? 2 w 2 2

Protestant Catholic Jewish Some Other None

Although students are given an opportunity to check their

38. religious preference as "Some Other" or "None", neither of these categories has proved very enlightening in previous polls.

The '"Some Other" category is a catch-all for students

who adhere to a variety of minor sects.

Since no informa­

tion is available as to the church preference of these stu­ dents, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about the group as a whole.

The students who state that they have ho re­

ligious preference also present a dilemma for we do not know what their religious background has been, hence we cannot assume that religious influence is not present.

To simplify

the analysis and to avoid making unwarranted assumptions about these two categories, the data for the two groups have been combined. 4.

Where do you live? _ In 22In

the country or town under 2500 population a town or city of between 2500 and 25,000 population In a city of over 25,000 population

When the responses to this trichotomous question were analyzed, we found that students who attended the same urban schools often

gave disparate

they lived in a town or city

responses; some indicating that of between 2500 and 25,000 popu­

lation, while others indicated that they lived in cities of over 25,000.

These results suggested that either the stu­

dent s do not know the size of their communities or they are confused between the population of their immediate community and that of the metropolitan area of which it is a part.

In

order to avoid making spurious differentiations, we decided to adhere to the distinction which the XJ. S. census makes

between urban and rural communities*

Those students who

said they re aide in the country or in a town of under 2500 population were considered as rural studentsy while those living in communities of more than 2500 population were con­ sidered as urban. 5»

House and Home; Does your family have; Yes

No

Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No

Have you had paid lessons in dancing, dramatics, expres­ sion, elocution, art or music outside of school? Yes

No

Did your father finish high school?

No

A vacuum cleaner? An electric or gas refrig­ erator? A bathtub or shower? A telephone? An automobile?

The student was instructed to count

Yes

the number of “yes*1

answers and to indicate the number by blackening a desig­ nated space on the ballot card. This brief scale of economic status was originally de­ veloped for the Purdue Opinion poll from the most discrimina­ tory items of the Kerr-Remmers American Home scale (26). This scale was validated by Elias (18) in 1944 on the basis of home visitation in midwestern communities*

The scale has

been slightly modified in recent years to make it more gener­ ally applicable to a nationwide sample.

Two items pertaining

to the possession of a fireplace in the home and to the pos­ session of a central heating system were found to be inap­ plicable to the nationwide sample which included southern

40e students from înomes where neither a fireplace nor a furnace was a criterion of economic status*

The two items selected

to replace these items were those pertaining to the presence of a bathtub or shower in the home and to the educational level of the father*

The revised scale has not been vali­

dated on a national sample* The distribution of total scores obtained in the present poll suggests that the scale may not discriminate adequately for urban groups although it appears to do so for rural groups* Table II presents the distribution of total scores on the House and Home Scale for a sample of 2500 students strati­ fied according to sex, grade in school, and religion. TABLE II Distribution of Total Number of "Yes11 answers to Items On House and Home Scale N g 8500 Number of "Yes" Ans* 0 1 8 5 4 5 6 7 Totals

Rural Sample No. of Cases

%

Urban Sample No. of Cases %

11 66 129 177 257 255 220 155

1 5 10 14 19 20 18 12

7 15 16 44 89 182 390 480

1 1 1 4 7 15 32 39

1264

100

1221

100

(15 students failed to answer this question.)

It has been customary to split the sample into a high and a low economic group with a score of six or seven re­ quired for inclusion In the high g roup.

On the basis of

the distribution given above, this cut-off would have placed more than half of the urban students in the high economic group.

Since this seemed to give a distorted picture of the

economic distribution in the U* S., the cut-off was raised# Only students who had answered all seven Items "Yes" were in­ cluded in the high economic group#

Using this cut-off put

12 per cent of the rural students in the high economic group as compared with 39 per cent of the urban students*

The

results suggest that it may be desirable to use different cut-off points for the rural and the urban groups* Signed vs. Unsigned Questionnaires One of the problems we wished to investigate was the difference in the response of students when they were re­ quired to sign the questionnaire and when they answered anonymously#

Since it was not practical to test the same

students under the two different sets of conditions, we decided to use a split— sample technique as an alternative means of investigating*

Accordingly, the schools were ran­

domly assigned to the signed or the unsigned sample*

Slight

readjustments were made in the samples to make them approxi­ mately equal in the number of students that were to be polled and to keep the number of students In each region about the same*

42. Both, typos of schools rocoived th© same questionnaire booklets and. teachers received the same sheet of directions, the only difference being that in one set of directions the sentence “Sign your name on the back of the ballot card** had been crossed out.

For the students who were not required to

sign their names, this poll was no different from the other polls that they had taken during the year.

Students in the

“signed** group were directed to sign their names on the back of the ballot cards immediately after they received the poll materials.

No explanation was offered by the teachers for

this change in procedure.

Students were left free to infer

that the teacher would be able to see how they had answered the questions.

To this extent, then, the conditions under

which the “signed* group answered the questions approximated the usual school situation in which students fill out a signed questionnaire, knowing in advance that their answers may be scrutinized. The change in procedure which required students in cer­ tain schools to sign their names to the questionnaire, seems to have had an adverse effect on the participation of some of the schools in the “signed” sample.

Initially, about

17,000 ballot cards were mailed to the regular panel members and to the three additional schools included in this poll. Approximately eight thousand ballot cards were returned by schools in the “unsigned1* sample, while only about 4500 cards were returned by schools in the “signed” sample.

There can

be no doubt that in addition to the self— selection already

43 present in the sample, there was further self-selection on the basis of willingness to participate in a poll which was not anonymous*

Since the only difference between the two

groups was the directions which called for students to sign their ballot cards, we may conclude that the sample of schools which elected to participate are different, in indeterminate ways, from those which were unwilling to take part in this poll* It may thus be said that in reality we have two samples. One consists of about 8,000 ballot cards from students who answered the questionnaire anonymously, while the other con­ sists of about 4500 cards from students who signed their names#

While neither sample may be said to constitute a

truly random sample of high school youth in general, there is good reason to believe that both samples are fairly rep­ resentative of the teen-agers who make up the high school population#

The students who participate are drawn from,

one—room high schools in unheard of hamlets as well as from modern metropolitan high schools in the populous cities# The poll reaches places where the national opinion pollers rarely,if ever,

set foot#

The participants come from all

sorts of homes and with a variety of religious and political backgrounds#

The fact that the students are polled in in­

tact groups in the classroom may be considered one of the strong features of the sample*

The teacher does not select

the student or students to be tested, although she does de­ termine which groups are to participate#

The whole group

44. fills out the questionnaire*

Chance alone determines which

students from a particular school or grade will be included in the stratified sample which is constructed from all the ballot cards that are 'returned.

However, it is true that

chance has an opportunity to operate only with a restricted population*

Further research is clearly needed to determine

in what manner and to what extent the restrictions imposed by self-selection result in samples different from those that might be obtained through the use of area sampling or quota sampling»

45e

A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS:

METHODS AND RESULTS

Effect of Signing The Questionnaire A question of immediate practical significance was that pertaining to the effect which signing or not signing the questionnaire might have on the response of students.

If

the analysis were to reveal that it made no difference whether students signed the ballot card or answered anonymously, there would be sound basis for treating the ballot cards from the signed and the unsigned sample as coming from a single population.

If, however, the differences were found

to be significant (from a practical point of view as well as from a statistical) the two samples could not be ana** lyzed as one* The question of signed vs. unsigned questionnaires has been Investigated by Fischer (21).

He notes that earlier

investigations had reported contradictory results*

In his

experiment, 102 upper cl ass women in two psychology courses completed the Mooney problems Check List with and without signatures being used. one week*

The interim between testings was

The results indicated that the mean number of

problems underlined did not vary significantly, but that the mean number of problems circled (serious problems) tended to be significantly greater when signatures were withheld.

He

concludes that “...the use of signatures on personal ques­ tionnaires (particularly in the case of highly personal items) might have a relative inhibitory effect on the honesty

46e and. frankness of the people responding to them (21 p. 226)• ^ To throw further light on this question as It relates to the present study, two samples of 2000 cards each were randomly drawn from the signed and unsigned decks.

These

cards had been mechanically shuffled by means of an IBM col­ lator through successive merging of cards from different trays.

Table III gives the distribution of students on three

classification characteristics for the two samples which were randomly drawn from the total deck of signed and un­ signed cards.

While discrepancies exist in the absolute

comparability of the two samples, they appear to be suf­ ficiently similar on the three classification breakdowns to justify the assumption that the 2000 students who signed the questionnaire were essentially similar to those who re­ sponded anonymously* The most striking discrepancy between the two samples was found on the religious breakdown.

In the unsigned

sample, there were cards for 127 Jewish students, while in the signed sample there were only 32 cards for this re­ ligious denomination*

This discrepancy is too large to be

attributed to sampling alone.

It is quite possible that

Jewish students were reluctant to indicate their religion when signatures were required on the ballot card. pothesis should be investigated further*

The hy­

TABLE III Distribution of Randomly Selected Signed and Unsigned Ballot Cards On Three Classification Factors (N 8 2000 In Each Sample)

Classifications

Boys

Unsigned

Signed

1005

905

997

1095

9th Grade

607

646

10th Grade

541

665

11th Grade

362

460

12th Grade

463

322

17

2

1330

1390

Catholic

394

420

Jewish

127

32

Other

75

79

Hone

65

71

Girls

Post Graduate

Protestant

(Some students failed to give all the classification data requested, hence there are discrepancies in the totals.)

48.

Tke proportion of students in each, sample checking each of the 300 items on the questionnaire was computed in turn by successive sorts on the IBM counting sorter.

The largest

raw difference between two proportions was eight per cent. This occurred on item #31,

"My teachers play favorites"; as

we would expect, the students replying anonymously checked this item more often.

On 27 items there were no differences

at all between the raw proportions for the two groups.

Table

IV presents the distribution of raw percentage differences that were found between the signed and the unsigned sample.

TABLE IV Distribution of Raw Differences In proportions of problems Checked By Signed and Unsigned Samples, (N » 2000 In Each Sample)

% of Items

•08

1

0.3

.07

5

1.7

.06

6

2.0

.05

14

4.7

31

10.3

.03

75

25.0

.02

68

22.7

.01

73

24.3

27 300

9.0 100.0

• O Total

Ro. of Items

# O o

Difference Between proportions

49s* In general, the percentages obtained from the unsigned were slightly larger than were those from the signed sample*

On only 24 items was there a reversal of this trend,

but of these only five were found to be significant differ­ ences (one at the .01 level and db ur at the .05 level).

The

remaining 19 raw differences were not statistically signifi­ cant at either the .05 or the .01 level* An inspection of the

distribution given in Table IV

would lead one to conclude that essentially similar results may be obtained regardless of whether students do or do not sign the questionnaire*

Prom the practical point of view,

the uniformly small differences between the two groups would argue for the treatment of the signed and the unsigned sample as if they were a single sample, drawn from the same popula­ tion* Prom the viewpoint of statistical significance, however, this conclusion would not

be justified.

The significance of

differences between proportions on all Items

was tested by a

graphic method described by Burr and Hobson (7).

When the

300 raw differences were tested for significance at the .05 and the .01 level, it was found that 89 differences were significant at the .01 level or beyond and that 59 differ­ ences were significant at between the .05 and .01 level.

If

chance alone were operating we would expect about 15 items in 300 to be significant at the *05 level and about three items to be significant at the *01 level*

The fact that we find

148 of the differences significant at the .05 level or beyond.

ëOm indicates tïiat the two samples are different and th.at it is net unlikely that the different conditions of administra*» tion (signed vs. unsigned) are at least partially responsible for this difference*

We do not know, of course, what un**

controlled factors may also be operative in producing at least part of this difference* On the basis of the statistical evidence, it was decld*» ed that the more detailed analysis would be made only on the signed sample since the projected student problems question­ naire was intended to be an instrument which students would normally sign.

However, the fact that the differences b e ­

tween the signed and unsigned questionnaires were found to be relatively small and of little practical significance would suggest that in practice it makes little difference whether students do or do not sign a questionnaire such as the one used in this investigation.

It seems that only on

certain items, where a critical response might result in reprisals from school authorities, should we expect to find differences large enough to be considered of practical sig­ nificance.

Further investigation needs to be done on this

problem, especially on the differences between the two groups on the so-called ”serious* items* Construction of The stratified Sample One of the Important and dramatic lessons that students ©f opinion polling learned from the momentous failure of the Jtiterary Digest to predict the election of 1936 was the

51e

fallacy of relying upon a numerically large sample*

The

Literary Digest straw^poll mailed post cards to more than ten million people*

This was an impressive figure, but the fatal

flaw in the method was the source of the names to which the magazine sent the ballot cards*

The names were taken mainly

from automobile registration lists and from telephone direc® tories*

This introduced a strong economic bias, since per­

sons in the lower economic group were poorly represented on these lists*

Thus, a sample of ten million was no better than

a sample of ten thousand so long as the procedure contained this economic bias from the start* As Alderson (2) points out, the principles of scientific sampling were well established before 1936, and had been used successfully by students of market research for nearly a quarter century*

tfThe fundamental principle, ” writes Alder-

son, *is simply that a sample must be representative and that the question of size of sample is a secondary considera­ tion*

A perfectly representative sample is one which is a

perfect model of the total population to be sampled, paral* leling the larger group in all its principal dimensions and proportions" (2 p. 291)• As we have already noted, the sample used in the Purdue Panel may be biased by the fact that it is self-selected* We have also pointed out that in the present investigation a further element of self— selection was introduced by the un­ willingness of some schools to participate in the poll when signed questionnaires were requested.

These factors should

5&# i>e born© in mind as ever-present limitations on any general­ izations tiiat may be made.

The fact that a sample of 4500

signed questionnaires from high schools in all parts of the TJ. 3. were available for analysis does not automatically as­ sure a representative sample# , We must acknowledge at the outset that the sample of 4500 may be biased in various, indeterminate ways.

We do know that a random sample of 2000

signed questionnaires yielded a similar distribution on the factors of sex, grade in school, and religion as that ob­ tained for a sample of 2000 anonymous questionnaires.

We

also know that the proportion of items checked on the signed questionnaires closely parallels those obtained on the un­ signed questionnaires.

However, these facts tell us nothing

about how our sample of signed ballot cards would compare with a similar number of signed cards obtained from an un­ selected sample of U* S. high school students. If we are willing to assume, despite the selective factors known to exist in our sample, that the students par­ ticipating in the poll are fairly representative of TJ. S. high school students, we must still endeavor to make the sample a miniature of the entire high school population.

This

would require that our sample contain the appropriate ratio of boys to girls; that various grade levels and religious denominations be properly represented; that rural and urban groups be present in correct proportions; and that a myriad of other factors be taken into account.

In practice, the

stratification used in the Purdue panel has taken account of

tilie distribution of students by region and grade, based on TJ. S. Office of Education data (6)* In the present investigation,

stratification has been

made on the factors of grade and religion.

Although no ef­

fort was made to stratify on sex or on community size, these factors nevertheless tend to approximate those we would ex­ pect to find in the population as a whole.

It was not pos­

sible to give the four geographic regions their proportional representation, as has been done in the past.

The response

from Midwestern schools was much better than from schools in other regions.

For this reason, the sample used in the analy­

sis is heavily loaded with Midwestern students.

We have no

way of knowing with any degree of certainty to what extent or in what ways rigid regional stratification might have In­ fluenced the results.

One source of information about region­

al differences is the tabulation of item by item results In Report #21 (see Appendix B).

These results are in raw per­

centage form and have not been tested for significant dif­ ferences.

An inspection of these percentages, without benefit

of statistical test, would indicate that the differences ob­ served among regions are not as great and probably would not be as significant statistically as those found on other clas­ sification factors, such as sex, grade, religion, or place of residence. In an effort to determine the representation to allocate to the major religious groups in the TJ. S., a number of ref­ erence sources were consulted (14, 28, 47).

It soon became

54*

apparent that ^official" statistics, including those based en the decennial census of religious bodies (46) would give a distorted picture because of differing definitions and criteria as to what constitutes church membership*

We final­

ly decided that the major national opinion polling organiza­ tions might be the best source for this type of information, since interviewers for these organizations occasionally ask the people themselves to state to which religion they adhere* Information obtained from the National Opinion Research Cen­ ter, the American Institute for Public Opinion and from Elmo Roper gave essentially the same picture of religious distribution in the Ü. S. adult population*

According to

their figures, about seventy per cent are Protestants, twentyone per cent Catholics, and four per cent Jewish.

Less than

three per cent name ”some other* religion, and about the same proportion refuse to answer at all.

Students were

stratified according to their religion as well as on the basis of school grade* Since there were an insufficient number of Jewish stu­ dents in the signed sample to fill the quota, approximately fifty ballot cards of Jewish students were taken from the unsigned sample and used in the signed sample.

These are

the only unsigned cards used in the signed sample.

It was

judged that using some unsigned ballots from Jewish stu­ dents would do less violence to the principle of stratifica­ tion than not having a sufficiently large number of Jewish students represented to give a reliable picture of the

attitudes of this group# Table V gives the composition of the stratified sample that was finally constructed for the purpose of making an over-all analysis of the results for the signed sample#

Al­

though there were 2500 cards used in the sample, all students did not give complete information with regard to the classi­ fication variables.

For this reason, the totals in several

of the categories do not equal 2500.

In the analysis, cards

with data missing were temporarily laid aside but were used for all other breakdowns* The results of the analysis of the stratified sample are given in a separate report (41), pended (Appendix B ) .

a copy of which is ap­

The tables included in the report

give the raw percentages for each of the 300 items on all the groupings listed in Table V.

The text of the report

discusses briefly the more important differences observed in the data#

It would require a good-sized book to present

a full discussion of the results and the implications that these results have for education and for society as a whole. A careful study of the data can leave no doubt that young people do have a wide variety of problems and that the con­ struction of an inventory to assist uncovering these problems will prove a useful tool in secondary school guidance work*

TABLE V Composition of Stratified Sample of High School Students Used In Making Analysis Of Results Of Purdue Opinion Poll #21 (H s 2500 Signed Ballots)

Classifications

Ho. of Cases

Percent Percent in in Sample Pop. (approx

Total Sample

2500

100

100

Boys Girls

1194 1506

48 52

50 50

818 680 528 474

55 27 21 19

52 28 21 19

East Midwest South Mt. Pacific

519 1555 259 162

21 62 10 7

28 52 28 12

Rural Urban

1209 1291

48 52

42 58

Protestant Catholic J ewi sh Other or Hone

1655 544 150 150

66 22 6 6

70 20 6 4

Lower Economic Group Higher Economic Group

1809 646

74 26

no data available

9th 10th 11th 12th

Grade Grade Grade Grade

procédure Used in Item Analysis The assignment of items to eight general problem areas was originally accomplished on the basis of armchair judg­ ment, aided by whatever psychological insight the writer and other psychologists could bring to bear on the situation*

In

the last analysis, the criterion was chiefly the face validity of the various items•

It was clearly recognized that the

categories were not definitive and that arbitrary judgments would have to be made In the Initial allocation of items* Prom the outset, it was clear that statistical analysis was required to evaluate the placement of items and to serve as a guide in the reassignment of items that might have been misplaced in the preliminary form of the questionnaire» A standard item analysis technique commonly used in test construction is the correlation of each item in a test with the total score of the test*

If the test is made up of

fairly homogeneous items, the relationship between an item and the total score may be considered as an indication of the validity of the item*

Since the total score rather than

some outside measure is used as the criterion, this method of validation Is known as the method of •'internal consistency". We would be in error if we were to assume that a high cor­ relation "between an Item and the total score Is a guarantee of homogeneity*

If the items which make up the test measure

a variety of factors, the total score will incorporate and reflect the complexity which is inherent in the items*

If

we were seeking "pure" categories, we would be required to

58, meet the standards for nmidimensionality as set forth by Guttman (25) •

However, uni dimensionality is not one of the

goals that we have set for ourselves#

We are more interest­

ed in knowing the extent to which the various items assigned to a category measure the same problem domain as the other items in the category.

The human personality and the social

structure within which the individual exists are far too com­ plex to be encompassed in a handful of a priori categories. The choice of categories and the assignment of items to these categories is based on the assumption that despite their complexity and multi dimensionality, problems which deal with various aspect of the individual's adjustment will show a statistical relationship to one another#

This is es­

sentially the basis upon which all paper and pencil personal­ ity tests have been constructed.

If the same line of reason­

ing is adopted, the items which make up the various problem categories may tests.

be thought of as items in eight

If an Item belongs in a

given test,

different

it should cor­

relate fairly high with the total score based on all the items in the test.

Should an item correlate higher with the

total score of

some other test, there would

be reason to b e ­

lieve that the

item might be measuring more of the thing

that is being measured by the test with which it has the higher correlation. The process of category "purification” used in the re­ assignment of items Is based on the line of reasoning out­ lined above.

One thousand ballot cards were drawn from the

59 stratified sample of 2500 cards»

Before being included in

the sample, the cards were inspected by a clerk who had been instructed to eliminate any card which was almost en­ tirely blank,

since this would usually be an indication of

poor participation on the part of the student»

A number of

such cards were included in the stratified sample of 2500, since no inspection of the cards was made in the process of random selection.

The clerk was also instructed to use only

cards which had at least one mark in either of the last two categories.

This was done to make sure that the students

had at least gone as far as the next to last category in answering the questionnaire.

It was believed that the screen­

ing of cards in this manner would

do little violence

principle of random selection and would, at the same

to the time,

assure us of an item analysis sample in which there would be no blank or partially answered cards.

There is no sound

reason for using such cards in an item analysis, when cards with bona fide responses are available. In order to derive a total score for each problem area, scoring templates were prepared to facilitate hand-scoring. The template was placed over the ballot card and a count made of the number of holes that had been punched in a given problem area.

Each item that had been checked as a problem

counted one point toward a total score for the category in which it had been originally included. in more than one area#

After all

No item was counted

the cards had been

scored

for the eight areas, the total score for each area was

60 g eng-punched into the Individual ballot cards by means of an IBM reproducing punch.

The cards were then sorted on an IBM

counting sorter to obtain frequency distributions of the total score for each area*

The average number of problems

checked in each area and the variability of the area scores are shown in Table VI. TABLE VI Number of Items, Mean, and Standard Deviation For Eight problem Areas of Original Inventory (N s 1000)

Category

36

2. After High School ???

36

11. 33

6*84

5. About Myself

48

H O • O

Me and My School

Standard Deviation CO #

.About

Mean

» CO

1

No. of 11 ems

6.58

4. G-etting Along With Others

36

9.09

5. 70

5, My Home, My Parents, & I

48

5,27

6.21

6. Boy Meets Girl

36

7.08

5.16

7. Health

24

3.80

2.68

56

6.78

5*36

8

.Things

in General

The measure of relationship between the item and the total score of the eight areas was determined by using bi­ serial correlation coefficients.

This measure of correla­

tion is frequently used in test construction work, since it

61. lends itself readily to situations in which, students pass or fail an item or, in the case of the problems question­ naire, do or do not check a given item as a problem.

The

formula used to obtain the biserial coefficient of correla­ tion makes no assumption about the shape of the distribu­ tion of the total scores.

It does assume, however, that the

trait represented by the two-categoried variable is in reality continuous and normally distributed and that the method of measurement has forced the data into two categories. The assumption is also made that the whole sampling distri­ bution is present, not merely the tails of such a distribu­ tion ( I p ,

115),

There can be little doubt that the dichotomous variable - - checking or not checking an item as a problem - - is essentially continuous.

If we wished, we could have asked

students to check the degree to which they had each problem. We could have used either a coarse or a very fine scale.

In

any event, we would have found, in all likelihood, that stu­ dents have the various problems in varying degrees.

One

student might check the item in our questionnaire even though he only had the problem to a slight degree.

To another stu­

dent the same problem might be a very serious one.

Our

method of measurement has forced what is really a continuous variable into a dichotomous mold. No test has been made to ascertain whether or not the continuous variable is normally distributed.

In view of the

fact that a large sample has been used in the analysis, it

62. does not seem xanre&sonflLbjbe to assume that most of the items would give fairly normal distributions if some form of a continuous measure had been used. To compute the biserial coefficients of correlation, the formula derived by Dunlap (16) was modified to facilitate computation with the aid of IBM tabulating equipment and tables especially prepared for this investigation.

Dunlap’s

formula saves considerable computational time by requiring the computation of only half the number of averages as call­ ed for in the more commonly used formula (1 p. 115).

The

formula for bi serial correlation can be written in the form; p

Pbi=

'—

where M-r-

is the mean of the criterion scores for the total group

M

is the mean of the criterion scores for the group passing (or checking) the Item being studied T

z

is the standard deviation of the criterion scores for the total group is the ordinate corresponding to p

The formula given above has been rewritten as follows ; XXp - M T •p N

Oy

*

Z

where EXp

is the sum of the criterion scores for the group checking the item.

The other terms in the formula retain the same meaning as in the previous formula.

63s It Is readily apparent that the term term

cr-y * z.

categories*

*p

and the

are constants for each of the eight problem Since we already had computed the mean and stand­

ard deviation for each of the categories, it was only neces­ sary to multiply the mean of each area by all values of p for the range of p ’s that occur In our data* in tabular form*

These were set up

A similar table was prepared by multiplying

the standard deviation of each area by the appropriate values of z*

We thus had eight sets of tables from which we could

obtain without further computation, the values of the two constants needed to solve the formula* The

H X p

values for each of the 300 Items on each of

the eight categories were obtained by using the IBM tabulator with digit selectors*

The values on all eight categories

were obtained for two items at a time on each run through the tabulator. in this way.

A total of 2400

ZXp

values were obtained

To solve the formula for bIserial r, it was

then necessary to subtract the appropriate 5IX p

My -p

from the

and to divide the difference by the value of oy •z*

The 2400 bi serial correlation coefficients obtained in this way are given in Appendix C. It is worth noting that in computing the bi serial cor­ relations, each item was correlated with a total score of one of the areas in which it was itself included.

This ob­

viously results In an unknown amount of criterion score con­ tamination and in a spuriously high correlation, item appears on both sides of the equation.

since the

To ascertain by

64. how much the coefficients of* correlation were increased by this overlap, a series of empirical checks were made, which, in effect, parti&lled out the spurious correlation.

The

formula used to 0decontaminate11 the coefficients of correla­ tion, is based on one given by Peters and Van Voorhis (38 p. 217). = ________ V i ° T ' v/p°l_________

y o j 2- + pq - 2.rb. oy where r . bt

is the biserial coefficient of correlation between an item and the sum of the items of which It is one.

r c

isthe predicted biserial correlation between an Item and the (a-1) other items, not In­ cluding itself.

(Ty

is the standard deviation of the total of all Items.

pc|

is

the variance of the item itself.

The empirical check, made for items having high and low p values and high and low correlation coefficients indicated that in general the amount of spurious correlation would range between .03 and .10.

Table VII gives the original

biserial correlation and the corrected correlation for ten items which were corrected b y formula.

Because of the great

amount of labor Involved, it was not deemed practicable to correct each of the 300 biserial correlations.

It was

judged that thé immediate purpose for which the correlation coefficients were to be used could be adequately served by roughly estimating the magnitude of the correction.

The

values in Appendix 0 were therefor allowed to stand uncorrected.

TABLE-VII Comparison Of Ten Biserial Coefficients Of Correlation With And Without Correction For Overlap Between Item And Total Score (N s 1000)

Original Item No.

P

St

/ (uncorrected)

rbi (corrected)

1

•54

4. 84

.52

*44

10

.10

4*84

•69

.66

13

.33

4*84

.54

.46

37

.47

6.84

.56

.51

60

*30

6.84

* 23

.16

94

#23

6.58

*42

.36

106

*09

6.58

*38

.34

.58

5*70

.54

.47

172

.09

6.20

.59

.56

222

.15

5.16

.37

.31

126



An Inspection of the biserial correlations between each item and the total score for Its own area reveals that in general a high relationship exists.

This would indicate thaï

the initial assignment of items to the eight a priori cate* go ries was well done.

The items, for the most part, tend

to correlate fairly high with the total scores of the cate* gories to which they were assigned.

It would be desirable,

of course, to have the intercorrelation of each item with

66*every other item in its category*

This would show the degree

of overlap among the Items and the extent to which they were measuring the same thing*

The 44,860 Item intercorrelations

necessary to obtain this information were not computed because of the great amount of statistical labor that would be in­ volved in such an undertaking. The results of item analysis were used to determine the final placement of Items in the inventory.

Using the upper

limit of .10 as a generous index of the maximum amount of spurious correlation, we examined for re-allocation any item found to have a validity coefficient in its own area that was equal to or less than the validity coefficient with the total score in some other area after .10 had been subtracted.

For

example, if an Item in area 1 had a correlation of *48 with the total score in area 1, and a correlation of .42 with the total score in area 2, the item would be examined to deter* mine whether or not it should be shifted to area 2, since the r of .42 was in all likelihood as great or greater than the r of *48 after correction.

No item was shifted from

one area to another if doing so failed to make sense, psycho­ logically speaking.

In all, 28 items were reassigned from

their original categories to new categories in which they had higher validity*

Table VIII gives the wording of the

statements and the biserial correlations for the 28 items which were reassigned.

T A B L E VIII

Wording Of Statements And Blserial Correlations Of The 28 Items Which Were Reassigned

Nof 8 19

21 24

51

54 73 82

101

110

112

Mo.

item Wording

Are^ oierlap) Area

*overlap)

99 I worry about tests,

1

* 50

3

*25

50 I would like to have more vocational courses.

1

.50

2

.29

39 I need advice in choosing courses.

1

*46

2

.44

38 I would like to know more definitely how I am doing in my school work.

1

*42

2

*45

18 I must select a voca­ tion that doesn1t re­ quire college.

2

.38

1

.42

91 I fm not ready for any job when I graduate.

2

.40

5

.41

125 1 1m ill at ease at social affairs.

3

.51

4

.43

153 I lack attractive­ ness for the other sex.

3

.52

4

*49

137 I get stage fright when I speak before a group.

3

.40

4

*32

154 I c a n 1t seem to live up to the ideals I have set for myself.

3

*53

4

.44

264 I wonder if I am nor­ mal in my energy and endurance.

3

.48

7

.41

Table VIII (Continued)

©rig. No. 115

117

156

145

154 206 208 209 216

217

221

New NO. 141

217

85

210

285 181 152 79 179

180

151

Item Wording

r r New Orig. (with (without Area overlap) Area overlap)

I'm often left out of things other kids do.

5

*58

4

*52

I wonder if I am nor­ mal in my sexual de­ 5 velopment.

.51

6

.47

I need to learn not to let people push me around.

4

.50

5

.49

There is no place to dance in the town where I live.

4

*26

6

*25

I have difficulty budgeting my time.

4

.59

8

.52

I have too many dates.

6

.22

5

.27

I don't have a (girl) (boy) friend. 6

.29

4

.21

I'm not popular with (boys) (girls).

6

.50

5

.44

I'm criticized for dating (girls) (boys) who are older than I am. 6

.45

5

.46

I'm criticized for dating with a person of whom others do not approve.

6

*40

5

.46

How much initiative should I take in get­ ting invited to parties or dances? 6

.55

4

.50

69* Table VIII (Continued)

Orig. No.

250 237 264 275

New No.

207 187 255 216

Item Wording

r r Orig. New (without (with Area overlap) Area overlap)

My parents avoid dis­ cussing sex with me*

6

• 60

5

•59

I want to get married soon.

6

•24

5

• 33

I want to know about venereal disease.

7

.60

6

•50

I ,m bothered by dirty stories or vulgar talk.

8

.32

6

•25

295

249

Is smoking harmful?

8

.34

7

.50

296

221

Is drinking harmful?

8

.42

6

• 34

When we look at the items which were reassigned, it is not difficult to find plausible reasons for nearly every item that was shifted.

in nearly every case the items have a

double aspect,

so that it is possible to focus on one aspect

or the other.

For example, in terms of face validity, the

sentence nI worry about testsw would seem to belong with items which deal with school problems.

However, when the

results are analyzed statistically, we find that the "worry" part of the item appears to outweigh the part about "tests", hence it properly belongs with other items which deal with personal adjustment.

In similar fashion, we may find that

certain items appear to deal with boy-girl relationships

70.

(eg•# i have too many dates, 1 1m erltJLcized for dating an older person, I want to get married soon) actually turn out to have a closer relationship to the items which deal with parent**child relationships.

When viewed in this perspective,

it is readily apparent why these items should be shifted. An inspection of the validity coefficients in each area after "purification" indicates that there is sound reason to believe, on grounds of both face validity and the statis— tical criterion, that the eight categories are now fairly homogeneous and that a total score derived from summing the items checked in each area has some psychological meaning. Two items were dropped from the inventory as the re­ sults of comments received from competent persons who re­ viewed the test in its preliminary form.

The item,

"i have

a "crush" on another (boy) (girl)" was considered to be ambiguous, since there was no way of knowing from the re­ sponse whether the relationship was homosexual or hetero­ sexual.

The item,

"I*m not allowed to have dates" cor­

related *32 with area six in which it had been placed and •64 with area five. area five.

This clearly called for a shift to

However, an inspection of the items in area five

showed that another item,

"My parents are too strict about

dating" said substantially the same thing.

To avoid un­

necessary overlap, the item was dropped. Appendix D contains the revised form of the problems inventory after items had been shifted to new categories. Appendix D also gives the results for all items in the

inventory according to the various classification group­ ings.

These are the same data as given in the Report for

Poll #21 (see Appendix B) but they have been rearranged to fit the revised order of the items*

72

,

THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEMS INVENTORY The item analysis and the suhsequent shifting of items from one category to another had for their purpose the "puri­ fication” of the eight problem categories.

If we assume

that each of the eight areas are now relatively homogeneous and that the items cluster fairly well, we may think of the inventory as an instrument made up of eight subtests, measuring a broad problem area.

each

in this chapter we shall

Investigate statistically various aspects of this Instru­ ment.

We shall consider each of the subtests independently

to determine central tendency, variability,

and reliability.

We shall also study the relationships which exist among the various areas and the degree of overlap which they ex­ hibit. In order to obtain a total score for each individual on each of the eight problem areas, the 2500 cards In the nationwide sample were rescored by hand, using new keys developed after the item analysis and the reassignment of Items.

The total score in each area was gang-punched into

the 2500 cards, thus making possible further analysis on the basis of total scores.

Each item that had been checked as

a problem was counted as one unit of total score. that had not been checked were not counted.

Items

No item ap­

peared on more than one key, although the statistical evi­ dence suggests that some of the Items might profitably have been included in more than one area*

73. Tlie mean and standard deviation of the total scores for each of the eight problem areas in the revised inventory is given in Table IX. TABLE IX Number of items. Mean and Standard Deviation For Eight problem Areas For Revised inventory. (N e 2500)

Area

No. of Items

Mean

Standard Deviation

33

7.38

4.49

2

After High School ???

37

12.05

7.09

3

About Myself

44

9.42

6.10

4

Getting Along With Others

40

10.40

6.32

5

My Home, My parents, & I

53

5.76

6.59

6

Boy Meets Girl

32

6.64

7

Health

25

3.94

2.77

8

Things In General

34

6.36

5*06

to GO

About Me and My School

#

1

Internal Consistency Of The Eight Areas Before proceeding to examine the reliability of the total scores for the eight areas, we might pause to Investi­ gate the extent to which the Items in the various areas are internally consistent.

The biserial correlations obtained

by the item analysis procedure which has already been des­ cribed, furnish us with a measure of item validity in terms

74 of an Internal criterion.

in computing the hi serial co­

efficients of correlation, each Item was correlated with the total score of each of the eight problem categories.

We

have already pointed out that a small amount of overlap oc­ curs when the item is correlated with the total score of the area of which it is itself a part.

We should also recognize

that in shifting 28 items from the categories to which they were originally assigned to other categories, we doubtless produced many changes in the correlation coefficients.

It

would have been desirable to recompute the biserial r 's for each item and the new total scores that were derived after the items had been reassigned.

The amount of labor Involved

made this step Impractical. Table X gives the distribution of original biserial r 1s for each of the eight categories after items had been shifted.

While these are not strictly applicable, the dis­

tributions do furnish us with a rough idea of the degree of internal consistency that may be found in each.

It seems

reasonable to assume that if the item analysis were to be repeated, the bi serial correlations would be higher than those given in Table X since the shifting of items presum­ ably "purified" each of the categories by removing items which had been Improperly assigned. The median values of the biserial r 1s for each area ranged from .51 for area 7 (health) to .70 for area 5 (family relationships). *30.

Only 13 items had r 1s of less than

For most areas the range is between .30 and .70.

75, . TABLE X Distribution of B i aerial Coefficients of Correlation Between Each Item and Its Area Total Score

(N g 1000)

Biserial r

1

2

5

4

*95+ *90*».94

5

6

7

8

1

1 5

7 2

*85** 89 .80*.84

1

.75-*79 .70**74

4 2

5

0 1

2

4 6

*65**69 *60** 64

4 1

4 6

5 4

4 3

7 6

7 8

3 0

3 6

*55*.59 ■50**54

4 7

7 6

5 6

7 11

3 1

5 2

5 5

6 9

*45**49 .40**44

4 2

5 4

7 10

3 7

6 0

4 0

6 3

0 2

.35**59 , 50*. 34

2 2

0 0

1 1

0 2

1 0

1 1

1 1

1 1

»85*.29 .20*.84

1

1 1

1 2

0 1

2

3 1

53

37

44

40

55

32

25

34

.54

.57

.50

* 53

.70

,58

.51

.58

No. of Items Median r 1s

4 4

1

For area 5 (family relationships) some of the correlations go to *95 or higher*

in this area there are 17 items which cor­

relate *80 or above with the total score*

This would seem

to indicate that the items in this area tend to differenti­ ate sharply between students with good and poor home adjust­ ment.

76e Reliability Of Ttie Area Scores In our earlier discussion of the Mooney check list, we pointed out that there were several different concepts of reliability.

Oronbach (12) has specified at least four

definitions of reliability and has outlined the conditions under which these are applicable. In the present Instance we are mainly concerned with the reliability of a test at a given instant, not with its stability over a period of time.

We recognize that the mere

fact of taking a test may modify a person1s responses on a retest.

We also recognize that both the individual and the

conditions of his environment are constantly changing, so that low test«*retest reliability could reflect changes in the individual and/or in his environment.

Such evidence of

instability might be highly desirable under certain condi«* tions.

It is for this reason that in speaking of reliabil*

ity we shall confine ourselves to the stability of measure* ment at a given instant.

We want to be assured that whatever

we are measuring is being measured in a consistent manner at a given period in time. To obtain an estimate of reliability, as defined above, we have used one of the Kuder«Richardson formulas (27). These formulas, like the split-half method of obtaining reliability estimates, require but a single administration of the test.

They give the coefficient of correlation we

would get if we could simultaneously administer two pai^e^lel

TTe or equivalent forms of the test to the same individuals# They do not provide an estimate of reliability of a test over a period of time. The Kuder«*Biehardson formulas, which are gaining favor among test technologists, make explicit the assumptions in­ volved in the various formulas.

The choice of formula de­

pends on the assumptions that one is willing to make about the test#

Unlike the split-half method, these formulas do

not require assumptions concerning the equivalence of chance halves. To obtain an estimate of reliability for each of the eight problem areas, Kuder-Richardson Formula, Case II has been used (27).

This formula assumes that the items in a

given area are measuring a single factor.

To the extent

that the assumption is not met, the formula gives an under­ estimate of the true reliability.

While we recognize that

the assumption may not be fully met, it is met at least as well as it is for most available tests.

This formula makes

fewer assumptions than any of the other Kuder-Richardson formulas.

IttLfe use should give a somewhat more accurate

estimate of the reliability (as defined above) than any other of the Kuder-Richardson formulas. Although the original article by Kuder and Richardson (27) makes no statement as to the type of correlation co­ efficient that should be used, Adkins states that the form­ ula calls for the point biserial (1 p. 153).

Following the

advice of Adkins, we have transformed each of the biserial

78*

r 1 s into point bi serial s by tbe following formula:

The point biserial correlation coefficient is considerably lower than the bi serial correlation, hence the estimate of reliability is conservative»

Since the assumption that each

subtest measures only a single factor is not fully met, the values given in Table XI represent an underestimate. TABLE XI Reliability Coefficients For Eight problem Areas Based on 1000 Cases Drawn From A National Sample Of 2500 Cases

Reliability 1.

About M© and My School

*801



After High School ???

•880

5.

About Myself

.848

4.

Getting Along With Others

•854

5*

My Home, My Parents, & I

•909

6*

Boy Meets Girl

*845

7.

Health

•684

8.

Things In General

.845

The reliability coefficients for seven of the eight areas are sufficiently high by usual test construction standards to merit confidence in the consistency of the separate area

79, scores*

Th.© somewiiat lower reliability of the total score

of the health problems area la In all likelihood a function of the smaller number of items used, in this area*

Scores

obtained from this subtest will have to be interpreted with greater caution, since there is greater chance that an in­ dividual* s score in this area might exhibit less stability than his scores in other areas* Valid! ty When the term validity is used in connection with an aptitude, achievement, or personality test, it usually refers to the ability of the test to predict a criterion*

In recent

years, much thought has been given to the problem of select­ ing suitable criteria against which to validate predictors of all sorts*

Insofar as the problems inventory is an in­

strument for prediction, it must be regarded as not having been validated against an external criterion* the research still remains to be done•

This phase of

It will be necessary

to devote much thought to the selection and the evaluation of the criterion measures*

Only when suitable criteria

have been developed, will it be possible to obtain a reli­ able estimate of the inventory as a predictive instrument* In the absence of validation data in terms of an ex­ ternal criterion, what remains to be said about the validity of the inventory?

How do we know that it is measuring what

it is supposed to be measuring?

Are there other external

or internal indications that the instrument has validity?

80* If we examine the main pmrpose for which the inventory was designed, we note that it is supposed to provide teachers, counselors, and adzninistrators with an indication of what the student thinks are his needs and problems*

For this

there is no readily available external criterion*

The item

which an individual checks has validity for that individual* As long as he believes that certain problems are bothering him, his attitudes and behavior will be based on this be-* lief.

It is of secondary importance whether he is mistaken

in his perception or whether he is exaggerating the problem. How do we know that the problems listed in the inven­ tory are those that young people face?

unless the items

are characteristic of the problems usually found among high school students, no amount of statistical refinement could produce a valid inventory for the purposes that we have in­ dicated.

The source of the items and the method of select­

ing these items would in themselves give some assurance that they are characteristic of the problems faced by teen-agers* Most of the items were abstracted from anonymous essays written by high school students.

The frequency with which

various problems were mentioned clearly indicated that these were problems of concern to young people in different sec­ tions of the country.

Caution was exercised in selecting

items from the results of other investigations. results of empirical studies were used.

Only the

insofar as possible

lists of problems based on adult opinion - the type of list that Doane (15) would call "predicated needs” - were avoided*

81.

In reviewing the literature and in studying the results of other surveys, we found great similarity between the list of problems we had compiled and those that had been independ* ently compiled by other investigators.

While this observation

is entirely subjective, it nevertheless suggests that the problems represented in the inventory had also been found by other investigators. The results of Item analysis which have already been described, also provide some evidence about validity of the items against an internal criterion.

Each item in a problem

area was correlated with the total score for that area. The distribution of biserial coefficients of correlation shown In Table X support the contention that the items have a reasonably high degree of Internal consistency.

This fact

alone is no guarantee of validity, but we may conclude that whatever characteristic the items do measure, they are at least doing so together.

To the extent that the items do

represent real problems, a high degree of internal consist tency helps to justify the use of a total score as a pre­ dictor.

internal evidence of this sort, while not definitive.

Is nevertheless useful in an Intermediate type of validation. Final validation - the ability to predict a desired external criterion - still remains to be carried out. Intercorrelation Of Area Scores The intercorrelation of the total scores for the eight problem categories are shown in Table XII.

These

82 TABLE XII Intercorrelation Of Total Scores Among The Eight Problem Areas (M s 1000)

Area 1. 2,

1 (.80)*

8

5

4

5

6

7

8

• 40 (.88)

.55 *46 (•85)

.45 .58 .67 ( .85 )

.42 .35 •50 .46 (.91)

.35 .46 .45 .59 .46 (.84)

.34 .36 .47 .51 .47 .50 (.68)

.20 .39 .35 .48 .32 .48 .46 (.84)

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. *

Reliability coefficients are shown in parenthesi s.

Intercorrelations were obtained from the same sample of 1000 cards used in both the item analysis and in the determina­ tion of the reliabilities of the eight area scores.

The

computation of the intercorrelations was greatly facilitated by the use of IBM tabulator and summary punch, making use of the following formulas rX Y - ■- —

IXY-TXMy

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

/IX2-IXMx /IY*-XYMy The highest correlation (.67) is that between area 5 (personal adjustment) and area 4 (social adjustment)*

The

lowest (.20) is between area 1 (school problems) and area 8

85e (thing s in general) •

W@ may conclude from the table of

Intercorrelations that the eight areas are relatively in­ dependent.

Only six of the 28 intercorrelations exceed .50.

In other words, the amount of variance which any two tests have in common in most cases is less than 25 per cent.

This

is not an unreasonable amount of common variance; we would hardly expect an individual with problems in one area not to have related problems in other areas as well. Standardization and Norms The usefulness of an inventory such as this one may often be enhanced by making available suitable norms and by standardizing the instrument on appropriate groups.

In a

later section we shall discuss some of the uses to which the inventory may be put.

This section will deal with the de­

velopment of norms and the rationale underlying these norms. In arriving at the decision to provide normative data, we took into consideration the nature of the instrument and the uses which it was intended to serve.

To the extent that

our item analysis techniques had been successful in making the eight problem areas relatively homogeneous, we could regard each group of items as constituting a test dealing with a given problem area.

The total score on such a test

would not be a measure of intensity, but it would be an in­ dicator of the extent to which the items in a given problem area are of concern to the individual.

Comparing the total

scores of an individual in the various area would suggest

84»-

to the counselor In which, area the student had the greatest concentration of problems. If we wished to do so, we might stop at this point.

The

separate total scores for an Individual would have meaning and some utility to the teacher or counselor even if no normative data were available.

In practice, each user would

probably develop subjective norms based on his own experience with the instrument»

As data were accumulated in a given

school or community, statistical norms might be developed to facilitate the use and Interpretation of the total scores. However, published norms are one way of making known to others certain information about the characteristics of test performance*

They help to remove from the realm of private

experience certain facts which relate to the instrument» The teacher or counselor will still retain a considerable store of subjective information which is helpful In using the Instrument, but in a sense the development of norms represents the pooling of experience and the sharing of in­ formation that may be useful to all who are concerned with the Instrument* The collection of adequate normative data has nearly always posed a problem to those who develop and publish tests of any kind.

The author is usually restricted as to

the size and type of sample that he has available.

Test

publishers often try to collect normative data by giving the test to large numbers of Individuals, presumably simi­ lar to those for whom the Instrument is ultimately to be

85.

used.

Frequently tbe author and test publisher must rely

almost wholly on the willingness of users to cooperate In furnishing norm data. The types of norms that are usually available for stand­ ardized tests tend to present fairly coarse groupings.

For

example, norms may be available for various age groups or grade levels, without distinction between boys and girls; or they may be separate by sex, but undifferentiated for grade or size of community.

Such failure to differentiate

may obscure important differences - thus, in effect, throw­ ing away what may be useful information to those who use the instrument.

There are of course many tests with excellent

norms available.

There are others where there is no need

for fine differentiation.

However, the decision as to the

need for separate norm groups,

should be based on sound

evidence regarding the existence or nonexistence of impor­ tant differences in the various subgroups which make up the population for which the test has been designed. Wesman(44) has called attention to the failure of test editors to recognize adequately the importance of sex dif­ ferences, even when evidence exists that such differences are present.

He concludes that it may be desirable to pro­

vide separate norms for the most important areas which need differential reporting. sex norms,

As examples he suggests separate

separate vocational goal norms,

separate cur­

ricular norms, and separate city norms (44 p. 228).

It is

his contention that such differential norms would notably

86* increase th.e usefulness of tests for selection and. guidance purposes alike. Th.© results obtained from an analysis of Purdue Poll #21 (see Appendix B) reveal many important group differences. While the significance of these differences has

not been

tested statistically, the size of the sample alone gives us reason to believe that a great many of the observed dif* ferences are significant.

In line with the suggestion made

above, it might have been desirable to take into considéra* tion each of the breakdown factors in developing norms* Actually, it was feasible to deal with only those factors which appeared to be most important and also most useful from the viewpoint of educational administration.

We have

accordingly taken into consideration three factors - sex, grade in school, and community size.

Regional differences

did not appear to be of major importance.

Religious dif­

ferences and socio-economic differences were found to be highly significant, but neither of these groupings is very practical from an administrative viewpoint.

The Information

as to sex, school grade, and community size are readily available and the existence of differences among these groups is well established in psychological and educational liter­ ature. Sixteen different sets of norms have been prepared (Appendix is) which give the percentile values for raw scores in each of the eight problem areas.

For example, norms are

available for 9th grade rural boys.

Thus, if a rural teacher

wishes to compare his 9th grade boys with other 9th grade boys who live in communities of similar size, he can con­ sult the appropriate norm. rural girls*

The same holds for 9th grade

These norms take into account the fact that

differences do exist in the problem patterns of boys and girls; that the nature of o n e ’s problems may change from grade to grade; and that the problems of rural youngsters differ in many ways from those of city children*

By compar­

ing students on the appropriate norm, the teacher, the counselor, or the administrator can get a better idea of how his students compare with other students in terms of the number of items that they have checked as problems* This type of comparison is one point of departure for deal*# ing with the individual student or for getting a group dis­ cussion started*

Other approaches will be discussed in a

later section. In developing the norms, the 2500 cases in the national sample which has been described in Table V were subdivided according to sex, grade, and community size#

The total

scores for each problem area had previously been obtained by hand##scoring these cards to obtain statistical data re­ garding the sample.

Table XIII gives the number of cases

In each of the sixteen sub-groups for which norms were de­ veloped.

These groups are not as large as would have been

desirable, but the hand-scoring of additional ballot cards would have been too laborious and time-consuming.

The size

of the sample, unless extremely small, is relatively

88* unimport ant; it is the representativeness of the sample that determines its quality. TABLE XIII Number of Oases In Each of The 16 Groups Used In Preparation of Norms

Grade

Urban Boys

Rural Girls

Boys

Girls

9

229

199

173

230

10

181

185

115

181

11

114

115

145

140

12

100

138

122

105

624

637

555

656

Totals

In view of the sampling limitations discussed earlier, a word of caution should be inserted at this point for those who may be using these norms.

inasmuch as we are not certain

that our sample is truly representative of the U. S. high school population, we can make no claim that these norms are generally applicable.

In the strictest sense, these norms

apply only to those schools which returned signed ballots in Purdue Poll #21.

However, we know that included in this

sample were thousands of high school students from all parts of the U* S*

There is no sound reason to believe that the

problems reported by these students would differ materially from those of other students across the nation.

Whether or

not indeterminate biases were operative may be ascertained

89 toy experimental studies using fresh samples from the general high school population.

Until such time as new national

norms can toe developed, these norms may toe used as an in­ dication of how students in various sub-groups respond to this inventory.

We feel that if counselors were faced with

the alternative of using the norms that are available and not having any norms at all, they would prefer to make use of the present norms until better ones are constructed. A further limitation regarding these norms should be pointed out.

The questionnaire upon which the norms were

based was administered to students as an opinion poll.

This

condition will not exist when the inventory is given to other high school groups.

We do not know what difference this may

make in the responsiveness of the students.

Because of the

different "set^ which may exist when the inventory is used as a tool in guidance, new norms should be developed as soon as possible which will represent the standard conditions for administering the inventory.

90. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ITEMS Types Of Items When the original 300-item questionnaire was prepared, each item was considered as a statement of a problem without classification as to its possible psychological implications. The choice of items had been guided mainly by the frequency with which the problems had been mentioned and by a desire to include in the inventory the widest possible coverage of teen-age problems. In reviewing the items and in attempting to think through the interpretation that might be placed on the total scores for the area, it became apparent that there were at least two distinct types of problems represented in the inventory. For want of better terms, one type was identified as 11prob­ lem Recognition^ items while the other type was called the "Basic Difficulty" items. In attempting to differentiate between the two types of items, we found that the problem recognition items were mainly those in which the student asked for information or in which he expressed a desire for self-improvement through the acquisition of new skills*

In general these were not

what we would think of as serious problems.

The student

merely recognized a need and sought to fill that need; or he might recognize a source of difficulty and express a desire to do something about it.

Such problems are usually

handled through the curriculum or by making certain

91.

information available to those who need It*

On the surface,

at least, the Individual does not appear to be emotionally disturbed about the problem* The second category includes problems with more subtle psychological implications*

Here we find many items similar

to those included on personality tests.

They deal with

various aspects of adjustment, with motivation, and with control.

The items seem to represent some of the more basic

problems with which clinical psychologists and mental hygi*enists must grapple,

since persons having such problems

frequently develop inadequate modes of adjustment. Well aware of the pitfalls inherent in attempting to make a dichotomy of this sort, we nevertheless thought it would be worthwhile to attempt to test the hypothesis on a group of professionally competent judges.

If they too dis­

cerned the differentiation and if they were able to agree on the proper classification of the items, it would lend some credence to the hypothesis. As a pilot experiment, to determine whether it would be possible to obtain agreement about the items from experts, three psychologists were invited to sit as a panel to dis­ cuss the items and to reach decisions regarding their pos­ sible significance*

Each judge was given a copy of the

questionnaire (Appendix B ) and a letter explaining the pur­ pose of the project (Appendix P ) *

The judges discussed each

item and were then polled individually as to how they would classify it*

In general, there was good agreement among

92# the judges, although split votes were common#

On some items

the judges could not decide on the proper classification and no vote was recorded. Following the preliminary try-out using group discus­ sion, additional judgments were obtained from four other "experts" in the fields of education, and guidance.

Each

of these judges worked independently without benefit of group discussion such as that enjoyed by the three original judges.

As we should expect, this group showed greater

variability than the earlier group had shown. Although the conditions under which the rating were made were not comparable, we decided to pool the judgments of the seven "experts" in order to get an idea of how well they agreed.

Because there was undoubtedly an element of

spurious agreement in the ratings of the group which had discussed the items, we set a fairly high criterion for agreement as to the classification of an item*

Only when

at least six of the seven experts agreed on the classifica­ tion was an item placed in that classification.

Table XIV

shows that the experts agreed unanimously on 109 Items, while on 89 items there was only one dissenting vote.

Thus

for nearly two thirds of the items a small group of experts with widely different backgrounds were able to agree as to the possible diagnostic significance of items - ie*, that they were indicative of either "problem recognition" or "basic difficulty" type problems.

TABLE XIV Agreement of Seven Judges On Classification of Items As "Basic Difficulty" or "problem Recognition"

Unanimous

6 out of 7

Total

Basic Difficulty

47

54

101

Problem Recognition

62

35

97

109

89

198

Classification

Total

We are well aware of the limitations of using the judge­ ment of experts - no matter how competent - to determine the diagnostic significance of items.

Even if the number of

judges were increased tenfold or a hundredfold, we would still have only the pooled subjective judgments of a group of judges attempting to classify complex and dynamic phe­ nomena into a static,

structural schema.

in discussing the

project with our judges, we made it clear that we were seek­ ing their assistance merely to test the hypothesis that at least two different types of items exist in the Inventory. The results would indicate that the dichotomy can be made for about two thirds of the items, while no agreement can be reached on the remaining items. We all recognized from the outset that each item might have a multitude of different meanings to different indivi­ duals and that what might be a highly significant adjustment

94e

problem for one Individual might Toe a fairly trivial matter for another, although both marked the item as a problem. The whole question of intensity must be taken into considera­ tion.

Furthermore, the diagnostic significance of an item

depends on the whole life situation of the Individual - his past and his present.

W© cannot tell in advance what an

item means for an individual unless we have a good under­ standing of the personality dynamics of that individual.

It

is with full cognizance of these limitations that we venture the suggestion that in view of the agreement found among a small group of experts, it may be possible to say that certain items are more likely to have significance in terms of personal adjustment than are other items.

The generaliza­

tion may be found to hold for adolescents in general. but it would have to be determined specifically for each indi­ vidual.

It would Indeed be unfortunate if a counselor were

to conclude that because experts are able to agree that an item may have clinical significance that the individual who checks such items should ipso facto be regarded as a person with personality difficulties.

Only when there is sound

supporting evidence should the Inference be made that the problem is a serious one. The "Basic Difficulty" Key While the foregoing discussion clearly indicates the need for basic research on this problem, we believe that guidance workers will profit from knowing which items a

95» group of experts have classified, as being indicative of a possible personality difficulty.

it is important to stress

the tentative nature of these judgments.

To facilitate the

use of this information, the basic difficulty items have been indicated by an asterisk.

These items will be identi­

fied on the scoring key so that in reviewing the responses of an individual, the teacher or counselor will be able to determine whether the items checked in an area are predomi­ nantly of one type or the other.

Two individuals may check

the same number of items, but one may check more of the "basic difficulty" items.

The counselor may be able to do

a more effective job if he is forewarned that basic personal­ ity difficulties are more apt to be involved.

As we have al­

ready pointed out, the counselor should exercise great caution in concluding that these items do in fact mean that the individual is maladjusted.

Only when case history materials

and the results of psychometric examinations give support­ ing evidence should this inference be made. In view of the fact that no extensive analysis has yet been made of the basic difficulty items, no attempt has been made to attach clinical significance to any score derived from these items.

A basic difficulty key is provided by

which the counselor may obtain a count on the number of "basic difficulty" items that an individual has checked on the in­ ventory as a whole.

To facilitate group comparison,

norms are provided for boys and girls (Appendix E).

separate It was

not deemed worthwhile to develop finer breakdowns until a

96 more extensive investigation had. been conducted with these items* Before leaving the subject of norms, it might be well to point out that no definitive solution has been found for the problem of response set*

We know that students differ

in their cooperativeness and responsiveness.

Some students

are willing to check many problems; others are more guarded and check fewer problems*

This difference in response set

is reflected in the total number of problems checked.

It

means that the student who checks problems freely and with­ out restraint has a greater chance of getting a high per­ centile score than the students who adopt a cautious attitude* In an effort to offset the tendency not to mark items - since it is usually easier not to do something than to do it - the directions explicitly

stated that when they did

not check an item they were saying, in effect, not apply to me.*'

**This does

We have no way of knowing how effective

this device was in reducing any possible response set. There is clearly a need for further research on this phase of the problem.

One possible technique for dealing

with differential responsiveness might be to develop a ratio between the total number of items checked and the total number of basic difficulty items checked.

Such a ratio

would take into account the responsiveness of the individual* No experimentation has yet been done with this idea*

It is

mentioned here to demonstrate our awareness of certain dif­ ficulties which call for further investigation*

97 The "Stop Questions11 In discussing the Inventory with teachers and counsel­ ors at the secondary school level, we found considerable interest in some sort of rapid screening device which could be used to locate those students who might need counseling most urgently.

The concept of the "stop question" which had

been used In the Cornell Selectee Index (45) seemed to be applicable here.

In the Cornell Selectee Index there are

a small number of highly significant items buried among a larger number of noncritical items.

The "stop questions",

as they are called, are supposedly indicative of extreme maladjustment and may reveal serious psychosomatic diffi­ culties.

in practice, any individual who checked one or

more of the "stop questions" was referred to a psychiatrist for a detailed Interview.

As we should expect, many false

positives are turned up by this method, but a sufficiently large number of problem cases are revealed to justify the procedure. On the assumption that there were at least a few items In the student problems Inventory which could serve as "stop questions", the seven experts were asked to indicate which items they considered as sufficiently critical to be placed In this category*

A large number of Items were indicated,

but only the twenty items which had been mentioned by three or more judges were considered.

These twenty suggested

"stop questions" were sent to a group of 15 psychologists and guidance specialists In the Division of Education and

98

Applied Psychology at Purdue University.

The accompanying

letter and the 20 suggested stop questions are shown in Ap­ pendix F*

Each judge was asked to indicate by checking "yes"

or "no" whether he considered each item sufficiently impor­ tant to be included in a "stop key." the question sheet*

Twelve judges returned

A tabulation of responses shown in

Table XV indicates that twelve of the twenty items were acceptable to at least eight of the twelve judges. items have therefore been included as a "stop key."

These At this

stage, the key is wholly unvalidated and should be used with even greater caution than the other keys and norms which ac­ company the inventory.

in the test manual the following

word of caution has been inserted; The stop questions are those items which psychologists have agreed may be indicative of a serious emotional disturbance. Any student who checks one or more of these stop questions should receive Immediate attention. Consultation may prove that no serious condition exists, but the school would be seriously remiss if no effort was made to find out what was troubling a boy or girl who had checked an item such as "I have thoughts of suicide", or who had confessed that he felt blue much of the time. We strongly recommend that users exercise caution in interpreting the stop scale. In no case should action be taken without further in­ vestigation. As a first step, the counselor should review the student’s response to the inventory as a whole. He should note, in particular, how the student answered questions dealing with per­ sonal adjustment, home adjustment, and health* If supporting evidence of a possible disturbing condition Is found in his answers to questions in these areas, the counselor will wish to con­ tinue his Investigation in order to get as com­ plete a picture as possible of the individual* In discussing the student with other teachers or with parents, the counselor must be very

99* TABLE XV Vote of 12 Psychologists For or Against Inclusion of Certain Items In A "Stop Key"

Stop Question Yes No * # « * * * « «

I hate school. . I could quit school now. . II wish am too restless to stay in school. can't sleep at night. . II have thoughts of suicide. I feel blue much of the time. . IPeople don't see much future for myself. stare at me.

1 2 3. 4 5* 6* 7 8. 9. 10. 11. 12

.

13. 14. «• 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. « 20.

feel that I'm not wanted. prefer to be alone. feel that I'm a burden on my parents. feel there's a barrier between me and my parents. I feel like leaving home. I think about sex a good deal of the time. I worry about my health. I sometimes feel faint. I want to discuss my personal problems with someone. I worry about little things. I 1m nervous. I feel guilty about things I've done. I I I I

6 9 6 9 12 12 10 10 12 9 7

4 3 5 3 0 0 2 2 0 3 5

8 6

4 6

2 10 7

10 2 5

7 3 4 8

5 9 8 4

«•Indicates items that were selected by at least an 8-*4 vote.

careful to avoid giving the impression that the individual is a "mental case" or anything of the sort. Such indiscretion may do the student Ir­ reparable harm and seriously hamper the efforts of those who may be able to help him make a bet­ ter adjustment to his situation. It Is important to remember that the "stop scale" Is merely a rough screening device. If used judiciously, it should prove helpful in picking out students who are in greatest need of counseling. If used in­ discriminately or if interpreted carelessly, it may defeat the very purpose for which it was in­ tended.

Needless to say, both, the "stop scale" and the "basic difficulty" key offer a great opportunity for further re­ search.

Both Instruments need to be related to existing

personality Inventories.

Even more important, however, they

need to be validated independently in the school situation. Only in this way can we determine to what extent devices of this sort contribute to the improvement of high school counseling.

USE AND ABUSE OF THE INVENTORY A Tool In Adminlstratlon And Guidance Running through the discussion of the development, analysis, and standardization of the student problems inven­ tory has been the implication that the instrument was being produced to be used in high school guidance*

The purposes

which the Inventory may be expected to serve, have been summarized in the manual which accompanies the instrument. These purposes may be stated as follows : The student problems inventory has been de­ signed specifically as a tool to assist teachers, counselors and administrators who are concerned with guiding young people to a better personal and social adjustment. It is intended to serve two principle uses. 1* Administrative u s e : in recent years, ed­ ucators have come to regard curriculum—making as a process in which all who are concerned should participate* The Inventory provides a means for student participation. Through it the teacher and administrator can quickly and conveniently get a picture of problems of the students in their school so that curriculum and content planning can be done with these needs clearly in mind. Specifically, the inventory provides a prac­ tical answer to the teacher or administrator in that it furnishes him wltli; - -

definite information as to those areas where his students have problems*

- -

definite indications as to what these prob­ lems may be.

- -

concrete evidence of the need for the introdiction or improvement of certain services and for modification of the curriculum.

- -

Information as to the differences in the prob­ lems and need patterns of boys and girls at various grade levels, suggesting the most

appropriate level at which materials to meet these needs may be introduced. • -

comparisons of his students with other stu­ dents of the same sex, grade level, and com­ munities of similar size.

- —

measuring the change in the nature and types of problems that result from curriculum re­ vision.

2» As a tool in guidance: The inventory is not offered as a substitute for the school counselor or for the teacher trained in guidance techniques. In fact, it points up the need for more and better counselors to help young people to cope with the problems which confront them. It is an instrument which can be very helpful to the teacher and coun­ selor in working with students who have personal, social, educational, or vocational problems. - -

The time available in most schools for diag­ nostic interviewing is very limited. The Inventory gives the counselor an over-all picture of the counselee1s problems in the shortest possible time. Trouble spots may be located almost immediately.

- -

The problems profile will show how an Indi­ vidual compares with other students in each of the eight problem areas.

- -

From the answer sheet, one learns what spe­ cific problems the student has checked and whether or not these are likely to be con­ sidered as serious by clinical psychologists or mental hygienists.

- -

The answers to specific items furnish clues that are useful for guiding the interview. The interviewer works from facts provided by the student about himself and his problems. He may Integrate all the information in the questionnaire, the information on the cumu­ lative record, and the information gained during the interview to form a dynamic con­ cept of the individual and his problems.

- -

The "stop key" quickly locates those students who have checked one or more items which may be indicative of some fairly serious adjust­ ment problem. These individuals may be re­ ferred to qualified medical and psychological

103. personnel for help In working out their problems and making a better adjustment to life. - -

-

Mental health may be provided through group guidance as well as through individual coun­ seling. From the instrument, the needs and problems of groups may be determined* The normative data provides a natural spring­ board from which a guided discussion about various problems may be initiated. Suit­ able reading materials may be made avail­ able to the class to help them to deal more effectively with their problems. The mere act of filling out the Inventory may prove beneficial to the individual student In a number of ways : a) He focuses attention on the things that are causing him concern. The better perspec­ tive which he gains may help him to clarify his problems. b) He gains a clearer idea of the things he may want to discuss with a counselor. c) He may be motivated to seek the solution of certain problems which he Is capable of handling by himself. d) He may be encouraged to seek help in work­ ing out his problems once they have been clarified.

Other Uses: There are many uses to which the inventory may be put, provided those who use it see the implications of the results and have the in­ genuity to communicate these implications to others : In-Service Training: Most schools select counselors from their teaching staffs. Inservice training provides a means of giving them some professional training. The inven­ tory provides a natural jumping-off place for a discussion of the problems which confront the students In a particular school. The more formal aspects of the training are brought down-to-earth by having results available from your own school. Public Relations : Community support for guid­ ance Is essential. The results of the inventory

104 can be used to obtain backing for introduc­ ing added guidance services, family living courses, etc. The results may also point to a need for adult education on matters con­ cerning the adolescent and his problems. — -

parent-teacher groups and civic organizations will be interested in knowing about the prob­ lems young people face and what can be done about them.

— -

Civic support for improving education and educational services may be won by telling the story about teen-age problems through the newspapers and on the radio.

A further excerpt from the manual will amplify the pos­ sible use of the Inventory in counseling; The area score Is merely a flag - a device to call attention to the area where the greatest con­ centration of problems occurs. It says in effects "Look here, this student has checked more Items about family problems than the average boy or girl at his grade level and In his type of community. " The area with the greatest amount of deviation from the average is usually a good place to start look­ ing at individual items for clues as to the sources of difficulty, but the other areas are not to be ignored. Items in various areas will help bring into focus the problem and may suggest ways in which the problem can be dealt with effectively. What about areas where the student scores be­ low the average? In addition to the facts as re­ corded by the student, this fact may be significant as an indication that the student either doesn't recognize his problems or that he is trying to con­ ceal them. in striving not to show his problems, he often will check so few items in the area about which he is sensitive that suspicion may be aroused when his score is compared with the norms. The interpretation of scores which deviate above or below the average rests with the counselor. The information provided by the inventory is only one type of Information. School records, personal history data, notes from previous interviews, and even the records of brothers and sisters may prove to be valuable sources of information from which the counselor may gain insight into the problems of the student.

105 The counselor who has studied the profile sheet and has noted the items that have been checked as problems can often formulate one or more hypothesis about the dynamics of an indi­ vidual case even before the interview begins# Interview time may then be used to explore the various hypotheses rather than for the blind questioning which usually characterizes the early stages of most Interviews. A Group Survey Technique When questionnaire data are used primarily as an aid in counseling, there are few serious problems connected with making use of the information*

The teacher or counselor

may summarize the results for each student on an individual profile sheet or, if he wishes, he may disregard scores al­ together and concentrate only on the items checked by the student. The school administrator meets a somewhat different problem*

He Is often faced with the necessity of summariz­

ing the data for large numbers of students so that he may see the over-all pattern of the problems of various groups* When the number of students involved is relatively small, a hand tabulation of the results can be made without muda. difficulty*

When the number of students included in the

survey reaches the hundreds or thousands, hand tabulation is clearly too cumbersome and too time-consuming to be prac­ tical. The procedure worked out by Mooney (31) represents one possible solution.

He has developed a special IBM scoring

machine answer sheet to which responses from the original Problem Check List may be transferred manually.

The counselor

106. thus retains the original check list while group summaries are prepared from the IBM answer sheet.

These sheets are

passed through an IBM Test Scoring Machine equipped with a graphic item counter in groups of not more than 100 sheets at a time.

The machine furnishes a printed graphic record

of the number of times each item has been checked.

The tal­

ly marks printed by the graphic Item counter must be counted before percentages or other statistics can be computed for the group. The disadvantages of this method may be summarized as follows :

1) the copying of answers from the questionnaire

to the special answer sheet is a tedious and relatively ex­ pensive clerical job.

2) The fact that each "run" on the

scoring machine is limited to a maximum of 100 answer sheets may mean that many "runs" will be necessary for a large group*

3) The graphic item count record must be added and

the Information from several sheets collated to obtain re­ sults for the group as a whole. The opinion polling procedure described earlier would seem to provide a practical solution to the problem of ob­ taining group summaries.

The method requires that each item

response in a questionnaire be given a unique designation, either by a number or by a number and letter combination. These must correspond with the answer spaces on an IBM marksense punch card which is used as a ballot card.

A special

electrographic pencil must be used in marking the ballot card.

The marks on the card are later converted to punches

in the card by means of an IBM mark»sensing punch.

The bal­

lot card, containing all the individual's responses, as well as certain classification data may be used in the IBM Counting-Sorter (which can count 400 cards a minute) or in the IBM Tabulator which counts and tabulates information in the cards at the rate of 150 cards per minute. When group summaries are desired, students may be in­ structed to mark their answers first on the question sheet and then in the proper space on the ballot card.

The indi­

vidual questionnaires are thus immediately available for use in guidance, while the ballot cards containing group summary data are ready for processing on IBM equipment# T h e f u l l y

P u rd u e

f o r

tw o

c o u n t r y .

th e m

p o l l

y e a r s

S tu d e n ts

d i r e c t i o n s . a n y

O p in io n

L e s s

h a v e

b e e n

i n s e em

th a n

p a n e l m o re t o o n e

r e j e c t e d

h a s

t h a n h a v e p e r f o r

u s e d 2 0 0

n o c e n t th e

t h i s

m e th o d

s c h o o ls

d i f f i c u l t y o f

t h e

a l l

o v e r

t h e

f o ll o w i n g

b a l l o t

s tu d e n ts '

s u c c e s s ­

c a r d s

f a i l u r e

t o

t h e i n m a rk

p r o p e r l y .

The method described above was used in the collection of the preliminary data needed for the analysis and standard­ ization of the problems Inventory.

Each of the participat­

ing schools received an individual report showing the number of students at each grade level and the number of students in the entire school that had checked each item on the ques­ tionnaire.

These reports were prepared on the IBM alpha­

betic and number!c tabulator using a technique devised by Df. S. E* Wirt, head of the Tabulating Division, Purdue

108. University. The cards for each school were sorted according to grade. A prepunched master card with the school name and code number was placed in front of the cards belonging to each school. Prepunched cards for grades nine through twelve were placed in front of cards corresponding to each grade level in a school.

The cards were then run through the IBM tabulator,

which had been wired to summarize and print the number of punched holes for each grade and for the total group on separate lines.

The results for 12 Items (the number of items

in each column of the ballot card) could be tabulated on each run through the machine.

It was thus necessary to make 25

runs to completely summarize and print the results for the 300 items in the questionnaire.

The report for each school

consisted of 25 sheets stapled together to make a booklet. Each sheet carried an identification (printed by the tabula­ tor) showing the column on the mark-sense card and the num­ bers of the first and last item in that column.

The number

of cards at each grade level was also printed on each sheet to facilitate computation of percentages. Since using the method described above requires special equipment, it would be desirable to have some centralized agency set up to perform this service for schools all over the nation.

This agency could furnish schools with the bal­

lot cards and special pencils and make the complete analysis for a small per capita charge.

The cost of obtaining group

summaries by this method was estimated, roughly, at

109 «

approximately three cents per pupil.

The service provided

by Mooney (31) (using the special IBM answer sheet) was avail­ able to schools at seven cents per pupil.

The method proposed

here appears to be more efficient and much more economical. I t

h a s

t h e

f u r t h e r

u s e d

f o r

o t h e r

d a t a

f o r

t h e

a d v a n ta g e

t y p e s

g r o u p

o f

r e s e a r c h

o u r

d e s c r i p t i o n k e y s w e

a r e

i n

W e

" b a s ic

w e W®

h a v e

p r e c a u t io n s

w e

c a l l e d w i t h

a d d it io n

c a r d s to

m a y

b e

p r o v i d i n g

f o ll o w - u p

d e v e lo p m e n t

o f

d i f f i c u l t y "

a n d

o u t

i t a t i o n s

r e c o g n iz e d

m a n y t h e

l i m l i m

a t t e n t i o n

t o

u s in g

n o rm s .

t a k i n g

w o u ld

t h e

p o in t e d

h a v e

a g a in s t

w it h o u t

t h e

h a v e

c o n n e c t io n

r e p e a t e d ly s c o r e

o f

a w a r e .

s a m p le . s e t"

o f

e v o lv e d ,

i n

b a l l o t

th e

i t a t i o n s

d is c u s s io n h o w

th e

s u m m a r ie s .

L i m

I n

t h a t

t h e

a c t io n

d a t a .

w is h

t o

o n

T h e s e m a k e

th e

t h e a r e

k n o w n

n o rm s " s to p

i t a t i o n s p r o b le m W e

b a s is o n ly t o

a n d

o f a

th o s e

o u r

q u e s t io n " o f

o f o f

h a v e

i n

w h ic h o u r

" r e s p o n s e

c a u t io n e d a n

fe w w ho

i n v e n t o r y o f

th e

u s e

t h e

in v e n t o r y .

Perhaps the best way to Indicate what we have said about the use and interpretation of the inventory, would be to quote several relevant sections from the manual.

These ex­

cerpts may overlap material which we have already covered, but they should help to show the framework within which the Inventory is suggested for use. Interpreting area scores; Caution must be exercised in Interpreting the area score for an individual. Despite the statistical "purifica­ tion ", it still is nothing more than an indicator

110.

of the relative frequency of problems. It ijs not a measure of Intensity. An Individual may check many Items, but reveal no really serious problems, whereas another individual may check only a few problems, but In so doing reveal a serious situa­ tion which calls for Immediate help. Interpreting individual item responses: As we have already indicated the response to any item depends (1) on the ability of the student to recog­ nize a statement as applying to him and (2) on his willingness to reveal a particular problem when he recognized it. We must realize, too, that Indi­ viduals differ in their responsiveness. Some will check items even when they only apply to a slight degree; others will check an item only when it Is bothering them to a considerable extent. There is no way of knowing from the item response itself the Intensity of any problem. This must be de­ termined from studying the relationship of items to one another and by relating the items to other known facts about the individual. We must also recognize that words do not have the same meaning to all people. Students may fail to check certain items because the statement does­ n't convey the same meaning to them that it con­ veys to the next person. If the counselor notes the omission of certain items which he knows from experience are usually related to a given problem pattern, he may wish to inquire about these items during the interview. By rephrasing the state­ ment in terms which may be more meaningful to a particular student, he may gain additional facts which will help to clarify the nature of the problem. The significance of items : While we recognize that the interpretation of an Item as "basic dif­ ficulty" or "problem recognition" for a given In­ dividual will depend on having much additional in­ formation about that individual, we nevertheless believe it will be helpful to the counselor to have some idea of what experts think about the item. To present the consensus on those items where there was good agreement (at least 6 out of 7 agreeing) we have marked certain items with a star on the answer key to indicate that these items may be in­ dicative of basic difficulty. The counselor should exercise caution in concluding that in a given case the response does mean that the individual may have a basic personality problem. Only when there is sound supporting evidence should the inference be made that the problem Is a serious one.

111.

We strongly recommend that users exercise caution in interpreting the "Stop Scale•,f In no case should action be taken without further in­ vestigation* As a first step, the counselor should review the student’s responses to the inventory as a whole* He should note, in particular, how the student answered the items dealing with his per­ sonal adjustment (Area 5), his home adjustment (Area 5) and his health adjustment (Area 7). If supporting evidence of a possible disturbing con­ dition is found in his answers to questions in these areas, the counselor will wish to continue the investigation in order to get as complete a picture as possible of the individual* In discus­ sing the student with other teachers or with par­ ents, the counselor must be very careful to avoid giving the impression that the individual is a "mental case" or anything of the sort* Such in­ discretion may do the student irreparable harm and seriously hamper the efforts of those who may be able to help him make a better adjustment to his situation* It is important to remember that the "Stop Scale" is merely a rough screening device* If used judiciously, it should prove helpful in pick­ ing out students who are in greatest need of counseling. If used indiscriminately or if in­ terpreted carelessly, it may defeat the very pur­ pose it was intended to serve.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Purpose and Procedure The purpose of this investigation was to develop a needs and problems inventory for high school youth.

The projected

instrument was to be useful as a tool in guidance and as a survey technique for administrative purposes.

The instru­

ment was planned to meet the standards of conventional test construction with respect to 1) reliability, 3) homogeneity of the subtests, and the subtests.

2) validity,

4) intercomelations of

Norms were to be developed for appropriate

groups of high school students and "expert” judgments were to be obtained as to the possible significance of the items. Anonymous essays about teen-age problems were obtained from more than 500 high school students in all parts of the country.

Suitable items for a problems and needs question­

naire were extracted by means of a content analysis of these essays.

Additional items were secured from a review of the

literature and from other sources.

Items were assigned to

eight a priori categories covering school problems, post­ school problems, personal adjustment problems, social ad­ justment problems, family relationships, boy-girl problems, health problems, and of general problems dealing with relig­ ious and ethical matters as well as other topics of a more general nature. The questionnaire, in check list form,was administered to more than 12,000 high school students at all grade levels

113. throughout the TJ. 3* as an opinion poll.

Results were

analyzed for a sample of 2500 cases, stratified according to sex, school grade, and religion.

The results were analyzed

according to six classification factors:

sex, grade in

school, region, size of community, religion, and socio­ economic status. To determine what effect requiring students to sign a questionnaire such as this might have on the response, a split sample technique was used.

Half of the students filled

out the questionnaire anonymously, while the remainder were required to sign their ballot cards.

Two samples of 2000

cases each were randomly drawn from among the signed and u n ­ signed ballot cards.

The differences between the two groups

on each question was tested for statistical significance. The homogeneity of the items in the eight problem areas was investigated by means of a standard item analysis pro­ cedure.

A biserial coefficient of correlation was computed

between each item and the total score for each problem cate­ gory.

The total score was determined by counting one point

for each item that had been checked in the category.

On the

basis of the item analysis, items were shifted from one category to another to increase the homogeneity of each area. The reliability of the total score for each problem area was computed, using the Kuder-RIchardson Formula, Case II.

The Intercorrelations of the total scores among the

eight areas was also determined. T o e n t

i n v e s t i g a t e

t y p e s

o f

it e m s

t h e w e r e

h y p o t h e s is r e p r e s e n t e d

t h a t i n

a t t h e

l e a s t

tw o

s a m p le ,

a

d i f f e r ­ p a n e l

114. of seven psychologists was

asked to judge whether each item

might he indicative of some "basic personality difficulty” or whether it was more likely to suggest the recognition by the student of a problem and of a desire to do something about the problem. A committee of twelve judges was also asked to indicate which of twenty selected items might be considered sufficient­ ly important and serious to be included in a "stop key. " Such items would presumably screen out the student in great­ est need of counseling. S e p a r a t e i n

s c h o o l,

a ls o

a n d

d e v e lo p e d

p e r c e n t i l e s i z e f o r

o f t h e

n o rm s

w e re

c o m m u n ity . " b a s ic

d e v e lo p e d S e p a r a t e

d i f f i c u l t y "

b y

s e x

s e x , n o rm s

g r a d e w e re

it e m s .

C o n c lu s io n s

1.

A needs and problems inventory has been developed using the conventional concepts of test technology, a*

The a priori assignment of items to was empirically

problem categories

checked by means of item analysis.

Twenty eight items were shifted from their original categories to other categories with which the an­ alysis showed a higher correlation with total score, b.

The reliability

of the total scores of each area

ranged from .68to .91 with a median reliability coefficient of *84.

This indicates that the var­

ious subtests are measuring consistently at the time that the measurement is made.

No statement can be

made about the stability of measurement after an interval of time. c.

The evidence for the validity of the inventory rests primarily on the source and the nature of the items themselves and on the internal consistency of these items.

The median biserial correlations between

each item and the total score of the area to which each was finally assigned range from .50 to .70. d.

The intercorrelations of the total scores among the eight problem areas range from .20 to .67.

Only six

of the 28 intercorrelations exceed .50, indicating that in most cases the amount of variance that any two tests have in common is less than 25 per cent* Requiring the student to sign a personal problems ques­ tionnaire produces responses that differ significantly from responses obtained when students answer anonymous­ ly.

These differences tend to be small.

The results

follow essentially the same pattern for both the "sign­ ed” and the "unsigned" group. a.

The differences between the "signed” and "unsigned” samples were statistically significant beyond the .05 level of confidence for nearly half of the items on the questionnaire,

b*

The response of the "signed" and "unsigned" group are essentially similar.

Despite the fact that

nearly half of the differences are significant, the median difference between items was only 1.7 per cent.

Only on one item was there a difference as great as eight per cent» c*

The "unsigned” sample yields consistently higher percentages.

There were 24 Items which reversed

this trend, but only five of the differences where reversals occurred were found to be statistically significant. A n

a n a l y s i s

i n

t h e

t o

s u c h

s a m p le

m u n it y , t h e s e s i z e

t h e

o f

f a c t o r s

a s

r e l i g i o n ,

t h e

s a m p le

d i f f e r e n c e s

n o rm s

b y

s e x ,

t h e s e

d i f f e r e n c e s

b e

a

i f

r e s p o n s e s

s h o w e d

d i f f e r e n c e s

s e r v e d r a t e

o f

c o a r s e r

t h a t

s e x , a n d w e re

th e

n o t

i n

s c h o o l,

t e s t e d

a s s u r e s

b e in g

g r o u p in g

w e r e

s u b g ro u p s

a r e s iz e

s t a t u s .

r e l a t e d o f

co m ­

W h ile

s t a t i s t i c a l l y , t h a t

s i g n i f i c a n t . a n d

v a r io u s

r e s p o n s e s

s o c io -e c o n o m ic

g r a d e , f r o m

th e s e

g r a d e

a lo n e a r e

f o r

m o s t T h e

o f

u s e

c o m m u n ity

s iz e

o b l i t e r a t e d

a s

u s e d

i n

t h e

th e

t h e o f

o b ­

s e p a ­

k e e p s t h e y

w o u ld

n o rm s .

A panel of competent judges with backgrounds in psy­ chology, education, and guidance were able to agree (by at least a six out of seven vote) on the classifica­ tion of 101 items as possibly indicative of some basic personality difficulty and on 97 items as probably more indicative of "problem recognition" by the student.

A

separate "basic difficulty" key has been prepared to assist counselors in interpreting the significance of items. A panel of twelve psychologists, educators, and guidance

"experts” was able to agree by at least an eight to four vote that 13 of 20 selected items were sufficiently seri­ ous and important to be Included in a "stop key” for screening students who may be in greatest need of coun­ seling. 6*

The use of the IBM mark-sense punch card to record re­ sponses to the items in the questionnaire has proved to be a practical and economical method for conducting school and community-wide surveys of youth problems.

The exten­

sion of this opinion polling technique to educational surveys makes possible the collection of up-to-date facts about the problems and the expressed needs of students for use in curriculum and program planning. 7.

If the Inventory is used with discretion, it should prove to be a helpful tool In guidance.

It would seem that

Its greatest use would be as an Interviewing aid and as a source of clues that may be helpful in diagnosis.

It

may prove to be a useful screening device for students who have greatest need for counseling, but users should recognize its limitations and the experimental nature of the norms and of the various keys.

No evidence is yet

available as to the validity of these keys against an external criterion. N e e d

F o r

F u r t h e r

R e s e a r c h

At various points in this dissertation, we have called attention to problems which may require further investigation

These suggestions for further research are summarized below. 1.

Validation studies:

The separate area scores, the "basic

difficulty" key, and the "stop questions" need to be validated against suitable external criteria. 2*

Response set:

What kinds of response set, if any, do

students exhibit when they answer the inventory?

What

sort of results are obtained when students are instructed to check the items which are not their problems, instead of those that are?

What effect does response set have

on the usefulness of the various norms?

Compare the

responses when items are presented In a mixed order (without regard for problem category) with responses obtained when items are grouped. 3.

How stable are the preliminary norms?

Are they adequate

for randomly selected groups? 4.

Further investigation by "expert judgment" and by other means, of the distinction made between "basic difficulty" and "problem recognition" items.

How may this informa­

tion be used in guidance and in curriculum development? 5.

The possible clinical usefulness of a ratio between the total number of items checked and the number of "basic difficulty" items checked.

6.

The relationship between the area scores and the "basic difficulty" score.

7.

The

relationship between the various scores derived from

the inventory and scores on other psychological tests. 8.

A factor analysis of the matrix of intercorrelations

of the area scores. Intercorrelation of the items within each area with view toward possible elimination of unnecessary overlap among items. Test the hypothesis that Jewish students are more re­ luctant to indicate their religious preference when signed ballots are used.

Test hypothesis that more

Catholic students reveal their religion when Signed ballots are used. Study the differences between signed and unsigned samples (using a factorially designed sample, if possible) with respect to the "basic difficulty" items and the "stop questions".

APPENDIX A

MATERIALS RELATING TO COLLECTION OP DATA

121

P u r d u e

U n i v e r s i t y

DIVISION OF EDUCATIONAL REFERENCE

LAFAYETTE. INDIANA

January 3, 1949 Dear Subscriber; The problems and needs of teen-agers are of paramount Interest to all educators. The Purdue Opinion Poll for Young People has tried to find out? what some of these problems are. However, we realize that polling alone does not give the whole picture. The students can only respond to the questions that we ask, and we may not always be asking the right questions. In order to learn what young people consider to be their most important problems, we are asking each of our participating schools to have one or more class groups write essays on this topic. We realize that it may not be possible for all schools to cooperate, but we hope that most of them will send us at least 40 or 50 papers. Our staff will analyze the essays and prepare a special Purdue Poll dealing exclusively with teen-age problems. This survey will be sent free of charge to all participating schools as an extra Poll. In this way we hope to make available to you valuable information about the problems and the needs of your students. In order not to structure the question any more than necessary, please read or paraphrase the following; The Purdue Opinion Poll for Young People wants to find out what problems are of greatest concern to high school students. Here is your chance to make known some of your ideas. Write a page or two about the things that bother you and other teen-agers— your real problems. These don’t neces­ sarily have to deal with school. They could be personal problems, home problems, social problems or anything else that is important to you and to teen-agers in general. Do not sign your name. We want you to be frank and sincere. Your ideas will help all of us to understand teen-agers better. Please send the essays to us as soon as possible. We feel certain that this investigation will be constructive and useful to you and to secondary education* Cordially yours,

H, H. Hammers Director Y 1248-7

P u r d u e DIVISION

U n i v e r s i t y

OF EDUCATIONAL REFERENCE

LAFAYETTE, INDIANA

February 17, 1949

Dear

E d u c a to r,

Xn January we promised subscribers to The Purdue Opinion Poll an *bxtra" poll-one that would deal entirely with teen-age problème* In preparing this poll, wo called upon the students of America to tell us in their own words what their problems wore* We have received a flood of letters from all parts of the United States— lctters that wore amazingly frank and revealing* Some, of course, dealt with trivial matters, others approached the tragic* From those letters and from other sources, wo have compiled the items for our special teen-age questionnaire* Wo bolievo that this is the first time that such an extensive survey has ever been made of the problems and needs of high school youth from their own point of view* Wo have hopes that the results may have far-reaching significance for American education* The Purdue Research Foundation has made a grant to the Purdue Opinion Poll for carrying out this special project,, Schools which participate will, âs usual, receive a report showing how their students answered each item* When the nationwide results have been analyzed, you will also reccivo a summary similar to those wo have's ont for our regular polls* We are confident that educators, parents, and young people all over America will be interested in knowing the outcome of this survey* We hope that you will cooperate as you have in the past in making surg that students follow directions. Please allow a full class period for giving this poll* The average student can finish in 30 minutes, but some students take a little longer* We would like very much to have all the ballot cards returned to Purdue University by March 4, 1949* The equipment which we use to prepare the individual school reports will be available to us only during tho week of Mhrch 6, 1949.Unless we have your returns by this date, wo cannot promise to send you a separate report for your school* Cordially yoursy

H* H* Rammers Director P.8*

The fourth poll for the year will reach our subscribers in about two weeks* Since some schools close earlier than others we are trying to give tho poll at a time when all our schools can participate*

PURDUE OPINION. POIL' FOR YOUNO PEOPLE Purduo University Lafayette, Indiana

| Your.school number

Manual of Directions for Poll Nov 21;.. February, 1949 General information Please familiarize, yourself wi th those directions* directions in at least three respects*

They differ from previous

1,

Students are to mark their answers, to the HOUSE‘'AND HOME 'qu ësil bns diroctl; on tho Question Shoot# .They will.ojaly.ro cord the total number of. "yos^ answers on.the ballot card*

8*

A different type; of question has boon used on this poll* Students are to mark on the ballot Card only the number and letter of the statements which tell how they feel or which pertain to them*

: 3*

In half of the Schôôls the, directions toll the student to write his name on the back of the ballot card* This is being done so that wo may find out what differences occur when students are required to sign their names and when they answer anonymously*. Please road the directions carefully* You are to ask students, to.dlgif’ttteir;.nasios; Unless:tMt' ^art;7qf the directions has boon orbaead. out» > , -

Please do hot delay giving this poll* The sooner we get. the results f r m your school, the sooner we can send you a report of hew ycur group answcrc.l the questions* It is very important that students mark the ballot cards properly* On*!y a hoavy black mark made with the special pencil will conduct the electric current necessary to punch holes *in those cards* The results for your school will not be complete if the cards are not marked properly® How to give tho Poll Please read or paraphrase the following directions so that allstudents will understand what "they afe to do* 1*

Introductory remarks ♦to pupils* TODAY WE ARE TO HAV3 THE PURDUE OPINION POLL -FOR."YOUNG PEOPLE. ON IT YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL 'HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT CŒTCERN HEdH SCHOOL STUDENTS* ABOUT 15,000 OTHER HIGH SQHOOL STUDENTS ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES WILL ALSO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. WHEN ALL THE RESULTS ARE IN, WE SHOULD HAVE A GOOD PICTURE OF WHAT THINGS BOTHER YOUNG AMERICANS MOST*.

2.

Pass'out the poll materials* Give each pupil a question sheet,' a ballot card, and a special pencil. Ask.the pupilsî IS THERE ANYONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE A SPECIAL PENCIL WITH A FAIRLY SHARP POINT? ' IF YOUR PENCIL POINT. SHOULD BREAK OR BECOME DULL, SHARPEN IT RIGHT AWAY. BEFORE WE BEGIN TO ANSWER THE POLL QUESTIONS, WE WANT. TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BALLOT CARDS FROM OUR SCHOOL ARE PROPERLY IDENTIFIED. IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE BALLOT CARD YOU WILL FIND A SPACE- MARKED «SCHOOL NUMBER.M IN THIS SPACE WRITE THE*NUMBERS (see top of page) THESE NUMBERS WILL IDENTIFY OUR SCHOOL IF THE CARDS SHOULD HAPPEN TO GET MIXED WITH THOSE FROM SOME OTHER SCHOOL®

3» Have students sign tho ballot card* ON THE BACK OF THE BALLOT CARD, WRITE YOUR NAME.

Explain how they are to mark the ballots. r IN M S W E r M j1 ' Q U E S T I o S f e ON THIS POLL IT IS V3RY IMPORTANT THAT YOU m a k e HEAVY BLACK MARKS THAT GO FROM ONE END OF "THE BRACKET TO THE OTHER. I WILL SHOW YOU ON THE BLACKBOARD HOW TO MAKE A GOOD MARK. Demonstrate on the blackboard that the mark'must be heavy and that it must go from one end of the bracket to the other. like this not this not this ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABŒJT HOW TO MARK THE BALLOT CARD? Directions for the Poll* ___ HEAD THE DIRECTIONS AT THE TOP OF YOUR QUESTION SHEET WHILE I READ THEM ALOUD. (Read the directions,,stressing the four steps to be followed.) NOW LOOK AT THE FIRST QUESTION, "ARE YOU A BOY OR A GIRL?" IF YOU ARE A BOY DRAW A HEAVY BLACK LINE THROUGH THE SPACE MARKED 1A ON THE BALLOT CARD, (pause) IF YOU ARE A GIRL DRAW A HEAVY BLACK LINE THROUGH THE SPACE MARKED IB ON THE BALLOT CARD. (pause) ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE FIRST PAGE. THEN WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. (If students do not know the population of their community, please give them this information* Make sure they know what to do in question #5). When students have completed the first page, NOW READ THE DIRECTIONS AT THE TOP OF THE NEXT PAGE. (Wait until they have finished reading) DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THAT HE IS TO BLACKEN THE NUMBER AND LETTER ON THE BALLOT CARD WHENEVER A STATEMENT EXPRESSES THE WAY HE FEELS? GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. REMEMBER, THIS IS NOT A TEST* IT WILL NOT AFFECT YOUR GRADES* THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS* (Wait until all students have finished the poll. Then say: ) NOW PUT YOUR QUESTION SHEETS ASIDE FOR A MOMENT. GO BACK OVER YOUR CARD AND BLACKEN EACH MARK YOU HAVE MADE. BE SURE THAT THE PENCIL MARK GOES FROM ONE END OF THE BRACKET TO THE OTHER. Collect the poll materials from the pupils. How and What Materials to Return Only tho cards need to be returned at this time. Before returning cards, check through them to make sure that all pupils have marked their cards according to your instructions. The cards should never have staples* paper clips or tight rubber bands, used on them, sine a any damage" to them will ecu so thorn to jam in tho machines. Stack the cards carefully and pack them ee&wreiy. All possible precautions should be taken to prevent the cards from being damaged. Wrap the cards in heavy cardboard or ship them in a small box. 1 Please do not delay in returning the ballot cards* Ship than the same day that the poll is given. The cards should be mailed no later than March 4, 1949. Return all the special, pencils to the person in charge of the poll in your school. Those pencils should bo safeguarded for use in the next poll and then returned to Purdue University. Please make sure that pencils are sharpened before being put away for tho next poll. Address your package to The Purduo Opinion Poll, Purdue University, Lafayotto, Indiana. • PLEASE MAIL BALLOT CARDS NO LATER THAN MARCH 4, 1949

APPENDIX B

T H E QUESTI ONNAIRE A N D RESULTS OF N A T I O N W I D E SURV E Y

126,

«PURDUE OPINION POLL ^ YOUNG PEOPLE The Of/z