An analysis of nursing State Board scores according to Myers-Briggs personality types

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An analysis of nursing State Board scores according to Myers-Briggs personality types
Physical Description:
ix, 78 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Williams, David D ( David Dean ), 1943-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Nurses and nursing -- Examinations, questions, etc   ( lcsh )
Personality   ( lcsh )
Prediction of scholastic success   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 75-77).
Statement of Responsibility:
by David D. Williams.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000163043
notis - AAS9393
oclc - 02733144
Classification:
lcc - RT73 .W544 1978
System ID:
AA00003533:00001

Full Text














AN ANALYSIS OF NURSING STATE BOARD SCORES
ACCORDING TO MYERS-BRIGGS
PERSONALITY TYPES













By

DAVID D. WILLIAMS


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1975


















To



Mary who first sparked my

interest in research




and



Dorris who believed I could do it


















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Grateful acknowledgment is extended to all those who assisted in

the completion of this study, but especially to:

Dr. James W. Hensel, Chairman of the supervisory committee, for

his interest and guidance;

Dr. Arthur J. Lewis, member of the supervisory committee, for his

interest and support;

Dr. Dorris B. Payne, member of the supervisory committee, for her

personal support and interest throughout the course of the study;

Dr. Carol Bradshaw and Mrs. Mary Davis, who made it possible to

include a sample of graduates from Santa Fe Community College;

Dr. Rose Ray, statistician, for her patience and attention to

detail;

Mrs. Judy L. Moore, who verified the data;

Mrs. Helen Adamson, who did the typing for her unfailing patience

and matchless performance;

The family and friends who were always ready with words of

encouragement;

The graduates, who made this study possible.





















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . .

LIST OF TABLES . .

ABSTRACT . . .


CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .


Purpose of the Study .

Questions for Study .

Delimitations of the Study .

Definition of Terms .


Need for the Study .

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .


Jungian Concepts . .

Relationship of Type to Scholastic


Summary . .

CHAPTER III METHOD OF STUDY . .


The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

The State Board Examination .

Description of the Sample .

Collection of Data .


. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .


. .

. .


. .

Performance


. .

. .

. .

. .

. .


Treatment of Data .


Page



iii

vi

viii

1


3

3

4


4

6

7


7

9

13

15

16

19

20

21















CHAPTER IV






CHAPTER V











APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C


BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIOGRAPHICAL


ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA .

Analysis of the Data . .

Interpretation of Data . .

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

Summary . . .

Conclusions . .

Discussion . . .

Recommendations . .

CHARACTERISTICS OF MYERS-BRIGGS TYPES .

DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES . .

BOARD SCORES COMPARED ACCORDING TO El AND SN
PREFERENCES . .




SKETCH . . .


Page

















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. DISTRIBUTION OF GRADUATES BY SCHOOL, SEX, AGE,
AND RACE . . ... ...... 20

2. DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES BY SCHOOL . .. 22

3. COMPARISON OF POPULATIONS ACCORDING TO SEX, RACE,
AND AGE . . .. 26

4. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR MEDICAL SCORES .. 27

5. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR SURGICAL SCORES .. 28

6. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR PEDIATRIC SCORES 28

7. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR OBSTETRIC SCORES ... 29

8. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR PSYCHIATRIC SCORES 29

9. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TOTAL BOARD SCORES 30

10. MEAN BOARD SCORES BY SCHOOL . ... 30

11. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN MEDICAL SCORES ... 33

12. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN SURGICAL SCORES .. 34

13. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN PEDIATRIC SCORES ..... 35

14. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN OBSTETRIC SCORES ..... 36

15. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN PSYCHIATRIC SCORES .. 37

16. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN SCORE ON TOTAL STATE
BOARD EXAMINATION. .. . . 38

17. THE MEDIAN TEST COMPARING 16 MBTI TYPES ON STATE
BOARD EXAMINATION SCORES . .... 39

18. MEDIAN BOARD SCORES BY TYPE . .... 39

19. EFFECT OF TYPE ON STATE BOARD SCORES: WHITES ONLY 40

20. EFFECT OF TYPE ON STATE BOARD SCORES: ALL SUBJECTS
UNDER 21 . . ... 41











Table


21. EFFECT OF TYPE ON STATE BOARD SCORES: ALL SUBJECTS
21 AND OVER . . . 42

22. EFFECT OF TYPE ON STATE BOARD SCORES: WHITE SUBJECTS
UNDER 21 . .. . 43

23. EFFECT OF TYPE ON STATE BOARD SCORES: WHITE SUBJECTS
21 YEARS AND OVER . . 44

24. BLACKS COMPARED TO WHITES ON PASS-FAIL BY AGE .. 44

25. COMPARISON OF TYPE BY PASS-FAIL . .. 45

26. CHARACTERISTICS OF MYERS-BRIGGS PERSONALITY TYPES IN
HIGH SCHOOL . . . 56

27. EFFECTS OF THE COMBINATIONS OF PERCEPTION AND JUDGMENT
IN MYERS-BRIGGS PERSONALITY TYPES . .. 60

28. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF SANTA FE WHITE MALES 21 YEARS AND
OLDER . . . 62

29. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE SANTA FE FEMALES 21 YEARS
AND OLDER . . 63

30. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE SANTA FE FEMALES LESS THAN
21 YEARS OLD . . . 64

31. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF SANTA FE BLACK FEMALES 21 YEARS
AND OLDER . . . 65

32. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF SANTA FE BLACK FEMALES LESS
THAN 21 YEARS OLD . . 66

33. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WHITE
MALES 21 YEARS AND OLDER . . .. 67

34. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WHITE
FEMALES 21 YEARS AND OLDER .. .. .. . 68

35. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WHITE
FEMALES LESS THAN 21 YEARS OLD . ... 69

36. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BLACK
FEMALES OVER 21 YEARS OLD . ... 70

37. COMPARISON OF TOTAL AND SUBSCALE MEANS BY MBTI
QUADRANTS . . . 72

38. NINETY-FIVE PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR
DIFFERENCES IN MEANS . .. 73

7ii


Page











Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



AN ANALYSIS OF THE NURSING STATE BOARD SCORES
ACCORDING TO MYERS-BRIGGS
PERSONALITY TYPES



By

David D. Williams

June, 1975

Chairman: James W. Hensel
Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction


This study was designed to test the hypothesis that there exists

a relationship between Jungian psychological type, as measured by the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator of Personality Variables (MBTI) and per-

formance on Nursing State Board Examinations.

The sample consisted of 312 students, 135 associate degree gradu-

ates, and 177 baccalaureate graduates.

As a result of MBTI testing, all participants were classified

according to four dichotomous dimensions: 1. Extraversion-Introversion,

2. Sensing-Intuition, 3. Thinking-Feeling, and 4. Judging-Perceiving.

Sixteen type classifications were possible.

Separate State Board scores were available for each of five sub-

scales: 1. Medical Nursing, 2. Surgical Nursing, 3. Pediatric Nursing,

4. Obstetric Nursing, and 5. Psychiatric Nursing.

Using the Analysis of Variance, both the null hypothesis of no

relationship between total Boards and psychological type and the null


*yiii












hypothesis of no relationship between performance on Board subscales

and psychological type were rejected at the .05 level. However, the

null hypothesis that performance by type would not differ between

associate degree and baccalaureate graduates could not be rejected at

the .05 level.

The Scheffe Method of multiple comparison and the Median Test were

used to make all pair-wise comparisons generated by classifying subjects

according to one, two, and four MBTI preferences. All pair-wise com-

parisons fell short of significance at the .05 level. There was no

one type which performed consistently higher or consistently lower on

either the total or on the subscales.











Chairman

















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY


One of the many problems continually confronting nursing edu-

cators is the prediction of student success on State Board Examinations

(Boards). Each year a number of graduates challenge the Boards unsuc-

cessfully.

The problem arises at the time students are admitted to programs

of nursing education. Each year an ever increasing number of students

apply for a limited number of positions in nursing schools. Admissions

committees must decide which applicants, if admitted, are likely to

complete the program and are likely to pass licensing examinations.

Throughout the educational program, instructors are confronted

with the problem of identifying students needing remediation prior to

challenging the Boards. Once identified, suitable learning experiences

must be prescribed. A predictive instrument providing clues as to what

educational activities would be beneficial to the candidate for remedi-

ation is needed.

And, of course, from the student's point of view, performance

on Boards is also a concern. If success on Boards could be predicted

on the basis of certain variables or factors, students with limited

potential for satisfactory performance could be identified early for

special assistance or counseled into programs for which they are better

suited. Two types of programs are available to students who wish

to be nurses. Associate degree programs tend to be practice oriented











while baccalaureate degree programs tend to be theory oriented.

There have been efforts to predict performance on Boards. The

National League for Nursing has found scores on the Pre-Nursing Guid-

ance Examination (PNG) to correlate positively with scores on Boards;

however, the PNG does not reveal clues as to suitable remedial activi-

ties (18). The National League for Nursing Achievement Test scores

have also been found to be predictive of success on Boards (2,3,19,21).

The NLN Achievement battery requires academic experience in nursing;

therefore, it can be used neither for admission screening nor for pre-

scribing individual learning experiences.

Others have found verbal performance on the Scholastic Aptitude

Test (SAT-V) to be a frequent significant predictor of performance on

Boards (1,15,22). While SAT-V scores are often used as admission cri-

teria, it tells nothing about individual learning styles nor is it

prescriptive of learning activities to assist borderline students.

Backman and others, in addition to finding SAT-V scores helpful,

found a significant positive correlation between Wechsler Adult Intel-

ligence Scale (WAIS) and Board scores (1). Again WAIS provides no

clues as to learning styles.

A review of the literature reveals only one study investigating

the relationship between personality traits and performance on Boards.

While this study did find I.Q. to be related positively to Board per-

formance, investigators concluded that success or failure on Boards is

independent of the types of personality traits the Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory (MMPI) measures e.g., hypochondriasis, depres-

sion, hysteria, etcetera (23).

Is it possible that performance on Boards is related to how one











uses the mind rather than indices of pathological personality traits?

Jungian personality variables as measured by the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator (MBTI), and which explain how one uses the mind, have

been shown to be related to academic success (6,7,12,13,14,17,20).

But do some types do better in one academic setting than another?

The variables identified by the MBTI have also been used success-

fully to identify learning styles and to prescribe individual learning

experiences (12,13,24,25,26).

If results on the MBTI can be shown to be predictive of per-

formance on Boards, and if the predictive factors differ according to

educational program, then MBTI results could be used as a tool to

identify students needing special assistance, as a basis for prescribing

educational experiences, and as a basis for counseling students into

the appropriate educational program.



Purpose of the Study


The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that there

exists a relationship between Jungian psychological type and performance

on State Board Examinations for nursing.

It was also the purpose of this study to determine the value of

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in predicting Board performance by

type of program.



Questions for Study


This study sought to find answers to the following questions:











1. Can psychological types be identified that perform

significantly different than other types on Boards?

2. Are there types that perform consistently well on

Boards or on sections of Boards?

3. Are there types that score consistently low on

Boards or on sections of Boards?

4. Is performance on Boards by type independent of

educational setting?



Delimitations of the Study


This study was delimited to 135 nurses who graduated from

Santa Fe Community College, Gainesville, Florida, during the years

1972 through 1974; and to 177 nurses who graduated from the University

of Florida during the same years. Only graduates who had taken both

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Boards were included.



Definition of Terms


For the purposes of this study these definitions will be used.

Associate Degree Graduate An individual graduated from a

Junior College program of nursing.

Baccalaureate Degree Graduate An individual graduated from

a Senior College program of nursing.

State Board Examination or Boards A national, objective

examination designed to assess competence on five subscales.

Extraversion or Introversion Preference This preference affects

an individual's choice whether to direct perception and judgment upon











the environment or the world of ideas.

Extraverts People who prefer the outer world of people and

things.

Introverts People who prefer the inner world of ideas and con-

cepts.

Sensing or Intuition Preference This preference affects an

individual's choice of which of these two kinds of perception to rely

on.

Sensing The preference whereby one becomes aware of things

directly through the five senses and direct experience.

Intuition The preference which filters the perceived data

through the unconscious, where ideas, relationships, and associations

are added.

Thinking or Feeling Preference This preference affects an

individual's choice of which of these two kinds of judgment to rely on.

Thinking A judging function, which is a logical process aimed

at an impersonal finding.

Feeling A judging function, which is a process of apprecia-

tion, bestowing on things a personal subjective value.

Judgment or Perception Preference This preference affects an

individual's choice whether to use a judging or perceptive attitude in

dealing with the environment.

Judgment The process of coming to a conclusion about what has

been perceived.

Perception The process of becoming aware--of things, people,

occurrences, or ideas.

Judging Attitude Attitude, using thinking or feeling, whereby











an individual will live in a planned, decided, orderly way, aiming to

regulate life and control it.

Perceptive Attitude Attitude, using sensing or intuition,

whereby an individual will live in a flexible, spontaneous way, aiming

to understand life and adapt to it.

Psychological Type, Personality Type, or Type Four letters which

represent the product of a person's conscious orientation to life, his

habitual, purposeful ways of using his mind, chosen because it seems to

him to be good, interesting, and trustworthy (17, p. 74).



Need for the Study


Efforts to find instruments predictive of performance on Boards

have tended to focus on aptitude and achievement tests. While these

tests have demonstrated predictive value, they are of limited value in

identifying learning styles and in prescribing suitable remedial activi-

ties. In addition, several instruments rely on some experience in

nursing education and cannot be utilized for admission counseling or

for early diagnostic work.

At the same time, there has been a paucity of effort to investi-

gate the relationship of psychological type to performance on Boards.

Type can be ascertained prior to admission, can be used to identify

learning styles, and can be used to prescribe suitable learning activi-

ties. An instrument that is both predictive and diagnostic would be of

value to nursing students and nursing educators.

There is also a need to know whether or not students perform dif-

ferently by type depending upon their educational program. If so, stu-

dents could be counseled into programs most beneficial for their type.

















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE


Although the literature overlaps, two major areas of research

can be identified: (1) Jung's theory of psychological type; and

(2) research exploring the relationship of type to scholastic per-

formance.



Jungian Concepts


According to Jung's theory (5,8,9,28,29), the differences in

the way people prefer to use perception and judgment causes much vari-

ation in human behavior.

Basically, there are two ways in which people perceive or be-

come aware of objects, people, events, and ideas. One way is by using

the five senses. Individuals who prefer to use their five senses for

perception are said to be Sensing types (S) and their preferred mode

of perception orients them toward the immediate, the real, tangible,

solid facts of experience.

The alternative method of becoming aware is through Intuition

(N). If one prefers intuition as the major means of perception, one

tends to focus on possibilities, meanings, and relationships of facts

and experience, usually with little interest in the facts themselves.

There are also two ways in which people judge or come to conclu-

sions about what they perceive. One way is to analyze and evaluate the











logical consequences. Individuals who prefer this mode of judging and

who make decisions objectively and impersonally are said to be Thinking

types (T).

The alternative method of coming to conclusions is through Feel-

ing (F). Feeling types tend to prefer making decisions by evaluating

the importance of alternatives to oneself or others, and making decisions

by weighing relative values.

There are two rival fields for the use of one's perception and

judgment. A typical direction of attention to the outer world of ob-

jects, people, and action is a preference for Extraversion (E). A pull

to the inner world of ideas and contemplation is a preference for

Introversion (I).

The remaining preference is between perception and judgment as

a way of life, a method of dealing with the surrounding world. A pref-

erence for a life that is organized, systematic and planned is a pref-

erence for a Judging (J) way of life. A Perceptive (P) way of life is

a preference for a life that is adaptive, flexible, and spontaneous.

Jung's theory assumes that a mature person uses all eight of

the above readily and effectively as the occasion demands. That is:



one sometimes takes the Extraverted attitude
with his attention on what is outside himself, and some-
times takes the Introverted attitude with his attention
on the ideas within his head. He at times focuses his
perception on what the situation actually is, and at
other times is seeing what it might become. He sometimes
makes decisions logically and impartially, and at other
times by choosing what he cares most deeply about. He
sometimes is systematic and controlled, and at other times
can be adaptable and spontaneous (14, p.3).











The theory also assumes that one pole of each preference has

greater natural appeal, and that an individual, unless hindered, will

use the preferred way whenever he can, developing it and strengthening

it through use. One's preference and development of E or I, S or N,

T or F, and J or P determine one's psychological type. Altogether six-

teen characteristic types are possible.

One's orientation to the world, E or I, permeates one's daily

life. Together, perception and judgment constitute a large portion of

the individual's total mental functioning. They must also govern a

large portion of his outer behavior, since by definition his percep-

tion determines what he sees in a situation and his judgment determines

what he decides to do about it. Is it not possible then, that per-

formance on Boards is influenced by preferred modes of perceiving and

judging?



Relationship of Type to Scholastic Performance


Studies reported show type classifications to be related to two

distinct factors which contribute to scholastic performance: (1) apti-

tude, and (2) achievement.


Aptitude

Data collected by Holland and Nichols from a random sample of

100 male, National Merit Finalists showed a predominance of Introverted

and Intuitive types. Fifty-eight percent of the sample were Intro-

verted and 83% were Intuitive (20). These two Indices tend to be found

less frequently in general population distributions. According to

Myers, the preponderance of Introverted and Intuitive types among the











the National Merit Finalists suggests that scholastic achievement as

measured by the SAT is associated with these two types (17).

Myers' own sample of eleven classes from eight liberal arts and.

engineering colleges showed scores for students having Introversion,

Intuition, or Perceptive preferences to be deviated significantly (P=

.01) upward from the mean SAT-V for the class as a whole. The differ-

ences for the Thinking or Feeling preference were less consistent and

fell short of significance (P=.05) for engineering students (17).

Similar results were reported by McCaulley. Mean SAT-V scores

for a sample of 1107 freshmen at the University of Florida gave Intro-

verts an advantage of 27.2 points over Extraverts, Intuitives an ad-

vantage of 42.9 points over Sensings, and Perceptives an advantage of

15.1 points over Judging types. Little difference could be seen be-

tween Thinking and Feeling types (14). McCaulley's findings confirm

the results of an earlier study of Auburn University freshmen con-

ducted by Grant (7).

Conary studied educational variables of 1708 Auburn University

freshmen using rank correlation techniques. Results showed mean scores

for Introverted Intuitive types to be significantly (P=.05) higher than

mean scores for Extraverted Sensing types on the American College Test

(6).

Type has been correlated with scores on Terman's Concept Mastery

Test for a sample of male freshmen at Brown University and a similar

sample at Wesleyan University. On Terman's Concept Mastery Test, which

is designed to measure the highest ranges of vocabulary and verbal rea-

soning, Introvert males appear to equal or even excel Intuitive males.

In the two male freshman classes for which Concept Mastery scores are











available, the Introverts' advantage was 12.2 points at Brown compared

with'the Intuitives' 11.3 points, and 14.8 points at Wesleyan compared

with 11.4 points. This finding is in accord with Introverts' postu-

lated interest in concepts and ideas (17). It should be noted, however,'

that the Concept Mastery Test is not timed, so that the Intuitives'

speed is of no particular asset, and the Introverts' depth can be fully

utilized.

Regression curves of the Concept Mastery scores for the Brown

freshmen upon Sensing and Intuition have been plotted separately for

Extraverts and for Introverts. For Extraverts, a mild preference for

Intuition appears to contribute nothing at all to mastery of the con-

cepts used in the test. On the other hand, for Introverts, each incre-

ment in Intuition raises the mean Concept Mastery score above the aver-

age. Thus evidence suggests that Introverts use their minds, including

their Intuition, in a way that is different and advantageous for dealing

with intricacies of language and thought (17).

The literature contains fewer references to the relationship be-

tween I.Q. and type. Myers, however, observes that Introverts with

Intuition have the highest mean I.Q. based on regression curves plotted

for 3503 male college preparatory students (17).


Achievement

Achievement is another criterion of scholastic success. Grade

point average of high school and college students provide evidence of

achievement.

Myers shows correlations of grade point average with type pref-

erence for seven male samples from liberal arts colleges, four











engineering colleges, and one school of finance and commerce; a liberal

arts' college for women; a large sample of male high school students;

and for a large sample of female high school students. From these cor-

relations, it appears that Introverts and Intuitives tend to have higher

grades (as would be expected from their higher aptitude) than Extra-

verts or Sensing types. While correlations for Introverts and Intui-

tives are consistent for all 15 samples, correlations fall short of sig-

nificance at the .05 level for 7 samples on Introversion and for 6

samples on Intuition. Correlations with the Judging attitude also indi-

cate that Judging students tend to have higher grades (in spite of lower

aptitude.) Correlations with the Judging attitude are significant at

the .05 level for 11 of the 15 samples. Correlations with the Thinking-

Feeling preference are smaller and, like the correlations with apti-

tude, somewhat less consistent (17).

Studying first quarter grade point averages for college fresh-

men, McCaulley reports that Introverted Intuitive types ranked highest,

holding the first four places on an ordinal scale of sixteen types.

McCaulley's data tend to support that of Myers with Introverts having

mean grade point averages higher than Extraverts, Intuitives Higher

than Sensing, Judging higher than Perceptive, and no difference between

Thinking and Feeling. The mean GPA for the highest ranking type, INTP,

was 2.78, and for the lowest, ESTP, 2.40. The investigator states

that ESTP and ESFP are the most academically vulnerable--"their prac-

tical, action-oriented, sociable, spontaneous style is not conducive

to long hours in libraries" (14, p.28).

Among the Auburn University freshmen studied by Conary, Intui-

tive Thinking types were found to have a significantly (P=.05) larger












representation in the grade point range of 2.00-3.00 while Sensing Feel-

ing types were found to have a significantly (P=.05) larger representa-

tion in the grade point range of 0.00-1.00 than would be empirically

expected (6). These findings tend to support the theory that Thinking

intuitors achieve differently than Feeling sensors; however, since the

preferences for Thinking and Feeling were not studied separately from

Intuition and Sensing, it is not known, from Conary's research, to

what extent Thinking and Feeling influence grades.

Stricker and others investigated the ability of the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator to predict grades at Wesleyan and Caltech. Preferences

for Introversion and for Judgment correlated significantly (P=.05) at

Wesleyan. Correlations were generally lower in the Caltech sample but

the same preferences correlated significantly at the .05 level. The in-

vestigators concluded that the Indicator had some ability to predict

grade point average, but "this ability varied with ... the sample (27,

p. 1094).



Summary


In summary the literature reviewed indicates that:

1. Behavior is influenced by preferred methods of using percep-

tion and judgment, and by an Extraverted or Introverted orientation to

the world.

2. Aptitude is enhanced by a preference for Introversion,-Intu-

ition, and Perception.

3. Achievement is enhanced by a preference for Introversion,

Intuition, and Judgment.







14


4. A preference for Thinking or Feeling contributes less signif-

icantly to scholastic performance.


















CHAPTER III

METHOD OF STUDY


This study was designed to explore the relationship between per-

formance on the MBTI and performance on Boards.

The overall hypothesis yielded the following null hypotheses to

be tested:

1. There is no significant relationship between perfor-

mance on the State Board Examination and psychological

type.

2. There is no significant relationship between perfor-

mance on the subscales of the State Board Examination


and psychological type.

3. There is no one type which performs

on the State Board Examination.

4. There is no one type which performs

on the subscales of the State Board

5. There is no one type which performs

on the State Board Examination.

6. There is no one type which performs

on the subscales of the State Board

7. Performance by type does not differ


consistently higher



consistently higher

Examination.

consistently lower



consistently lower

Examination.

between associate


degree and baccalaureate degree graduates.











Two instruments were used to collect data. The MBTI was admin-

istered to all participants while attending nursing school. The State

Board Examination, consisting of five subtests, was taken by all par-

ticipants following graduation.



The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator


The MBTI was developed by Mrs. Isabel Briggs Myers and her

mother, Mrs. Katherine C. Briggs, and first published by the Educa-

tional Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, in 1962. Based on the

personality theory of Carl Jung (8), it was designed to identify pref-

erences for four dichotomous dimensions: 1. Extraversion-Introversion,

2. Sensing-Intuition, 3. Thinking-Feeling, and 4. Judging-Perceiving.

The Extraversion (E) Introversion (I) preference indicates the

respondent's direction of interest toward the outer world of people,

action, and things or toward the inner world of ideas. The Sensing

(S) Intuition (N) preference indicates the individual's manner of

obtaining information, either through direct experience or through

inferred meaning. The Thinking (T) Feeling (F) preference identi-

fies the way in which the individual makes decisions, either on the

basis of logical order or personal importance. The Judging (J) -

Perceiving (P) preference indicates the individual's attitude toward

the outside world, either planned and orderly or flexible and spon-

taneous. Thus there are two modes of judging--Thinking and Feeling,

and two modes of perceiving--Sensing and Intuition. Which of these

is the dominant or most preferred process is determined by the pref-

erence for Extraversion or Introversion. While everyone uses all of











the eight processes at some time or another during his daily life, he

prefers one of the two processes representing each dimension, and, it

may be assumed, is more comfortable and effective when utilizing his

preferences.

The MBTI is a 166 item, forced choice inventory which may be

self-administered in about 45 minutes. In a description of the Indi-

cator, McCaulley stated:



Each question was selected for a specific theoret-
ical reason ... designed to be nonthreatening [and]
without pathological orientation ... [and each item
choice was] designed to be equally attractive to the
type to whom it was directed (11, p. 1).



There are two types of items--phrases and word pairs--each of

which is scored on only one index. Total scores are obtained for each

of the eight processes, and the larger score of each pair is consid-

ered representative of the respondent's preferred process.

The respondent's personality type may then be indicated by the

four letters identifying his preferences, E or I, S or N, T or F, and

J or P. The sixteen possible combinations of preferences are pre-

sented in Figure 1. Each of the type combinations has characteristic

personality features. Myers (17, p. 70-71) has developed descriptions

of each type, and a condensed version has been included in Appendix A.

The manifestation of personality type is determined by the interaction

of the four preferences. Some effects of the combinations of percep-

tion and judgment are summarized in Appendix A.

National norms for the Indicator have been developed by Myers

(17), as well as distributions of the 16 types among selected educational


















I--J

I--P

E--P

E--J


ST SF NF NT




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ


FIGURE 1. PERSONALITY TYPE*


I.B. Myers, Introduction To Type (Swarth-
more, Pennsylvania: By the Author,
1970), (16, p.3).


levels and occupational areas, which indicated that there are approx-

imately three extraverts to one introvert, and three persons who pre-

fer sensing to one who prefers intuition in the general population.

Also, more men prefer thinking and more women prefer feeling as a

basis for decision-making.

Reliability of the Indicator has been determined by split-half

tetrachoric correlations and application of the Spearman-Brown Prophecy

Formula. Most reliabilities of the indices are .75 or better, and the

reported median reliability is .83 (17, p.20). Buros (4) considered

these reliabilities comparable to those calculated from continuous

scores, and to other similar self-report instruments.

Myers (17) has provided considerable evidence for concurrent

validity of the Indicator by correlations with other instruments as











well as additional measures such as faculty ratings, job turnover, and

creativity. Also, evidence for construct validity was obtained from

correlations, corrected for differing reliabilities and attenuation,

of .97 or better with the Gray Wheelwright Psychological Type Question-

naire which was also based on Jungian personality theory and developed

independently of the MBTI. Relative to construct validity, Buros (4)

indicated that the SN and TF scales probably represented the theoret-

ical dimensions while the El and JP scales were more questionable.



The State Board Examination


The State Board Examination for nursing graduates is a standard-

ized test which consists of five subtests to assess competence in

1. Medical Nursing, 2. Surgical Nursing, 3. Pediatric Nursing, 4. Psy-

chiatric Nursing, and 5. Obstetric Nursing. Each section contains 90

to 120 objective, multiple choice questions. Administration is timed.

Depending upon the number of questions on a subtest, 90 to 120 minutes

may be permitted. Those finishing a subtest early are not permitted

to leave the testing area until the full time period has expired.

The Board was developed as a part of the National League for

Nursing (NLN) Test Pool and all fifty states contract with the NLN.for

use of the examination. Satisfactory performance indicates that a

practitioner meets legal requirements for safe practice. Unlike

achievement tests designed to measure maximum performance, Boards are

designed to test minimum competence.

Each subtest contains questions designed to test the cognitive

areas of knowledge, application, and evaluation. Alternate forms of

the subtests are used on a rotating basis.












Description of the Sample


Three hundred and twelve graduates from two schools were involved

in this study. This total includes 135 associate degree (Santa Fe Com-

munity College) graduates and 177 baccalaureate (University of Florida)

graduates. Of the associate degree graduates, 20 were black females

and nine were white males. All the rest were white females. Six of

the baccalaureate graduates were black females and 10 were white males.

The rest were white females. Because of the small number of males and

blacks available, no attempt was made to achieve a better balance be-

tween the sexes or the races. Table 1 shows the distribution of grad-

uates by school, sex, age, and race. In this study, age refers to the

age of subjects, in years, at the time they entered their nursing major.


TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF GRADUATES BY SCHOOL, SEX, AGE,* AND RACE

Santa Fe University of Florida
White Black White Black
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female


21 years
and older 8 57 16 10 53 5


Under 21 1 49 4 108 1


* Represents age in years at time of admission
to nursing program.











Only those graduates for whom both MBTI and Board scores were

available were included in the study. Due to the small number of

graduates available in several of the type classifications, random

selection proved to be impossible.



Collection of Data


Psychological Type

The data on psychological type were obtained by using the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The MBTI was administered as a part of

a routine testing program in both schools. Results were available for

all participants upon request.

As a result of testing, participants were classified according

to four dichotomous dimensions: 1. Extraversion-Introversion,

2. Sensing-Intuition, 3. Thinking-Feeling, and 4. Judging-Perceiving.

Combining the four letters identifying participants' preferences

resulted in sixteen type classifications. The distribution of types

by school is shown in Table 2. Additional tables illustrating the

distribution of type by age, sex, race, and school are contained in

Appendix B.


State Board Scores

The State Board Examination, challenged after graduation, pro-

vided the rest of the data. Separate scores were available for each

of the five subscales: 1. Medical Nursing, 2. Surgical Nursing,

3. Pediatric Nursing, 4. Psychiatric Nursing, and 5. Obstetric Nursing.

The five subscale scores were collected individually and combined to

determine a total Board score for each participant.











TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES BY SCHOOL


University
of Florida

Santa Fe





University
of Florida

Santa Fe





University
of Florida

Santa Fe





University
of Florida

Santa Fe


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N=9 5% N=21 12% N=13 7% N=4 2%


N=9 7% N=18 13% N=6 4% N=2 1%



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N=2 1% N=14 8% N=21 12% N=6 3%


N=3 2% N=7 5% N=13 10% N=2 1%



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N=3 2% N=9 5% N=26 15% N=5 3%


N=2 1% N=7 5% N=17 13% N=6 4%



ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N=10 6% N=18 10% N=15 8% N=l 1%


N=10 7% N=25 19% N=7 5% N=l 1%


Treatment of Data


Hypotheses numbers one and two were tested with analysis of

variance using the F statistic and with the Median Test to determine

the relationship between performance on Boards and psychological type.











Hypotheses three through six were tested using the Scheffe

Method of multiple comparisons and the Median Test to determine which

psychological types perform differently on Boards.

Hypothesis number seven was also tested using analysis of vari-

ance techniques to determine whether the relationship between type and

performance on Boards is the same for associate degree and baccalau-

reate degree graduates.

In addition, Chi Square, measures of central tendency, and

percent were used to check for confounding variables.


















CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA


The data consist of State Board Examination scores and MBTI

psychological type for 177 baccalaureate (University of Florida) and

135 associate degree (Santa Fe Community College) graduates. The

Board data consist of scores on five subscales: 1. Medical Nursing,

2. Surgical Nursing, 3. Pediatric Nursing, 4. Obstetric Nursing, and

5. Psychiatric Nursing. The MBTI data consist of 16 type classifica-

tions according to Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I), Sensing (S)

or Intuition (N), Thinking (T) or Feeling (F), and Perception (P)

or Judgment (J). In addition, the sex, age, and race of each subject

was recorded.

The object of this analysis was to find the relationships, if

any, between Board scores and personality type. It was also the ob-

ject of this analysis to discover if these relationships were different

for baccalaureate graduates than for associate degree graduates.

More specifically, it was the object of this analysis to test the

following seven null hypotheses:

1. There is no significant relationship between performance

on the State Board Examination and psychological type.

2. There is no significant relationship between performance

on the subscales of the State Board Examination and

psychological type.











3. There is no one type which performs consistently

higher on the State Board Examination.

4. There is no one type which performs consistently

higher on the subscales of the State Board Examination.

5. There is no one type which performs consistently lower

on the State Board Examination.

6. There is no one type which performs consistently lower

on the subscales of the State Board Examination.

7. Performance by type does not differ between associate

degree and baccalaureate degree graduates.



Analysis of the Data


As a preliminary check for confounding variables, the University

of Florida population and the Santa Fe population were compared with

respect to the distribution of age, sex, and race. Several differences

were noted with respect to race and age but not sex. There are sig-

nificantly more blacks in the Santa Fe population (P=.05). The Santa

Fe population is older on the average (P=.05) and more variable with

respect to age than the University of Florida population. The figures

are summarized in Table 3.

Next the two populations were compared with respect to distribu-

tion of type. The Chi Square test of independence was used for this

comparison. The Chi Square statistic, calculated at 10.91 with 15

degrees of freedom, fell short of significance at the .05 level. A

comparison of ESFJ types at both schools, however, revealed signifi-

cantly more (P=.05) ESFJ types in the Santa Fe population than in the











TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF POPULATIONS ACCORDING TO SEX,
RACE, AND AGE


Total Sample

% Male
% Female
% White
% Black


Mean
S.D.
Range


Santa Fe

135

6.7
93.3
85.2
14.8*


24.6*
6.93*
17-46


U. of F.

177

5.6
94.4
96.6
3.4


20.88
2.15
19-34


Significant at the .05 level.



University of Florida population. Generally, the distribution of

types in the University of Florida population appears to be the same

as in the Santa Fe population. The exception is that there are sig-

nificantly more ESFJ types in the Santa Fe population.

The two populations were also compared with respect to Board

scores both for total score and for subscale scores holding type con-

stant. Using a two-factor Analysis of Variance and a .05 level of sig-

nificance, there is no difference between the Santa Fe and the Univer-

sity of Florida populations on Medical score, Surgical score, Pediatric

score, Obstetric score, or on total score. These results are summar-

ized in Tables 4 through 8. There is a difference on Psychiatric score

(Table 9) with the University of Florida having the highest mean.










Table 10 summarizes the mean scores for both schools.

The same Analysis of Variance was used to test for interaction

between school and type. From Tables 4 through 8 it can be seen that

there is no significant interaction. In other words, Board scores

are related to psychological type in the same way at both schools.

Consequently, the hypothesis that performance by type would not differ

between associate degree and baccalaureate degree graduates failed to

be rejected.



TABLE 4. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR MEDICAL SCORES


Source df SS MS F Value


Regression 31 474,470.65 15,305.50 1.63*

Error 280 2,626,087.65 9,378.88

Corrected Total 311 3,100,558.30


Sequential Partial
df SS F Value MS F Value


School 1 67,918.53 7.24 10,633.33 1.13

MBTI 15 261,014.03 1.86 290,839.34 2.07*

School x MBTI 15 145,538.09 1.03 145,538.09 1.03


* Significant at .05 level.











TABLE 5. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR SURGICAL SCORES

Source df SS MS F Value

Regression 31 331,822.54 10,703.95 1.17
Error 280 2,570,664.05 9,180.94
Corrected Total 311 2,902,486.59


Sequential Partial
df SS F Value MS F Value

School 1 38,120.68 4.15 5,446.05 0.59
MBTI 15 125,815.81 0.91 147,000.06 1.07
School x MBTI 15 167,886.05 1.22 167,886.05 1.22






TABLE 6. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR PEDIATRIC SCORES

Source df SS MS F Value

Regression 31 512,486.46 16,531.82 1.87*
Error 280 2,476,485.39 8,844.59
Corrected Total 311 2,988,971.85


Sequential Partial
df SS F Value MS F Value

School 1 116,153.12 13.13 28,841.79 3.26
MBTI 15 264,719.31 2.00 285,743.67 2.15*
School x MBTI 15 131,614.03 0.99 131,614.03 0.99


* Significant at


.05 level.










TABLE 7. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR OBSTETRIC SCORES

Source df SS MS F Value


Regression 31 516,704.74 16,667.89 1.91*
Error 280 2,442,801.92 8,724.29
Corrected Total 311 2,959,506.66


Sequential Partial
df SS F Value MS F Value

School 1 99,873.96 11.4 13,947.22 1.60
MBTI 15 248,507.24 1.90 278,039.39 2.12*
School x MBTI 15 168,323.55 1.29 168,323.55 1.29



Significant at .05 level.





TABLE 8. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR PSYCHIATRIC SCORES

Source df SS MS F Value


Regression 31 968,520.84 31,242.61 3.58*
Error 280 2,441,953.16 8,721.26
Corrected Total 311 3,410,474.00


Sequential Partial
df SS F Value MS F Value

School 1 415,636.54 47.66 83,643.66 9.59*
MBTI 15 347,351.21 2.66 407,671.77 3.12*
School x MBTI 15 205,533.09 1.57 205.533.09 1.57


* Significant at .05 level











TABLE 9. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TOTAL BOARD SCORES

Source df SS MS F Value

Regression 31 11,775,217.09 379,845.71 2.35*
Error 280 45,337,494.90 161,919.62
Corrected Total 311 55,112,711.99


Sequential Partial
df SS F Value MS F Value


School 1 3,088,443.03 19.07 568,598.31 3.51
MBTI 15 5,359,858.10 2.21 6,067,946.86 2.50*
School x MBTI 15 3,326,915.96 1.37 3,326,915.96 1.37


* Significant at .05 level.







TABLE 10. MEAN BOARD SCORES BY SCHOOL


Medical Surgical Pediatric Obstetric Psychiatric Total



Santa Fe
Mean 470.9 479.5 491.0 488.6 479.2 2409.2
S.D. 8.34 8.25 8.09 8.04 8.04 34.63


U. of F.
Mean 500.7 501.8 530.0 524.7 552.9 2610.1
S.D. 7.28 7.20 7.07 7.02 7.02 30.25











Table 9 summarizes the sources of variance in total Board scores.

An F value significant at the .05 level was obtained for MBTI type on

the Analysis of Variance. Therefore, it was possible to reject the

hypothesis of no relationship between performance on Boards and psycho-

logical type.

It was also possible to reject the second hypothesis of no rela-

tionship between performance on subscales and psychological type. Sig-

nificant F values (P=.05) for MBTI type were obtained for Medical scores,

Pediatric scores, Obstetric scores, and Psychiatric scores. These

results are shown on Tables 4, 5, 6, and 8.

The Analysis of Variance of Surgical Scores (Table 5) failed to

obtain an F value significant at the .05 level. Therefore, it was pos-

sible to reject hypothesis number two only for four of five subscales.

To determine which psychological types have different scores,

specific types were compared using the Scheffe Method of multiple com-

parison. Comparisons were made for each of the five subscales as well

as for the total Board score. Included were:

1. All pair-wise comparisons generated by classifying

subjects according to only one MBTI preference, e.g.

E vs I, S vs N, et cetera.

2. All pair-wise comparisons generated by classifying

subjects according to two MBTI preferences, e.g.

EN vs ES, IN vs EN, et cetera.

3. All pair-wise comparisons generated by classifying

subjects according to all four MBTI preferences, e.g.

ISTJ vs ESTJ, ENFP vs ESTJ, et cetera.











All pair-wise comparisons fell short of significance at the .05

level. Because sample sizes were reduced when doing pair-wise compari-

sons, the differences between types would have to be large to be signifi-

cant.

Based on the Scheffe Method of multiple comparisons, it was not

possible to identify types which perform consistently higher or lower

than other types on Boards or on subscales of Boards; therefore, hypoth-

eses three through six were not rejected. (See tables in Appendix C.)

From Tables 11 through 16 it can be seen that some types tend to

rank higher than other types. It can also be seen that rank order posi-

tion is inconsistent from subscale to subscale. Sample sizes are small

and differences between high and low types are not significant.

The Median test was also used to compare all 16 MBTI types on

total score and on each of the five subscales. The Median Test results

in a Chi Square statistic are summarized in Table 17. As with the

Scheffe Method of multiple comparisons, sample sizes were too small to

detect significant differences.

The Median scores on all subscales and on total Boards are listed

for all 16 types on Table 18.


Consideration of Race

Due to small sample size, blacks were not analyzed separately.

Levy and others (10) have found the MBTI to be a psychometrically stable

instrument when applied to black populations; however, to provide edu-

cational opportunities to minorities, there has been a tendency in past

years to use different admissions criteria for blacks. Analysis of

Variance proceedings were done for whites only to control for a possible

sampling bias.











TABLE 11. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN MEDICAL SCORES


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 9 526.0 3 21 459.0 14 13 539.2 2 4 567.0 1

Santa Fe 9 461.0 13 18 451.9 14 6 497.8 5 2 636.5 1



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 2 520.0 5 14 480.9 12 21 517.1 6 6 505.7 8

Santa Fe 3 463.7 12 7 467.4 10 13 443.8 15 2 532.5 2



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 3 439.7 15 9 499.2 9 26 522.3 4 5 494.2 10

Santa Fe 2 484.5 6 7 341.1 16 17 530.5 3 6 505.7 4



ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 10 483.5 11 18 473.5 13 15 509.5 7 1 436.0 16

Santa Fe 10 464.4 11 25 468.0 9 7 470.9 8 1 476.0 7











TABLE 12. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN SURGICAL SCORES


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 9 536.0 4 21 494.9 10 13 547.7 2 4 536.2 3

Santa Fe 9 461.0 13 18 460.5 13 6 568.5 2 2 524.0 3



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 2 576.5 1 14 472.9 14 21 508.6 7 6 495.3 9

Santa Fe 3 444.0 15 7 502.1 6 13 459.2 14 2 466.5 10



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 3 452.0 15 9 515.3 5 26 489.7 12 5 473.0 13

Santa Fe 2 467.0 9 7 384.6 16 17 520.6 4 6 491.0 7



ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 10 508.8 6 18 491.5 11 15 497.0 8 1 435.0 16

Santa Fe 10 464.6 11 25 470.6 8 7 514.3 5 1 631.0 1











TABLE 13. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN PEDIATRIC SCORES


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 9 560.6 4 21 492.4 15 13 563.6 3 4 623.0 1

Santa Fe 9 460.1 13 18 458.0 14 6 543.3 6 2 608.0 1



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 2 570.0 2 14 516.9 11 21 547.7 5 6 536.8 7

Santa Fe 3 452.0 15 7 487.0 8 13 481.6 10 2 549.5 4



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 3 509.0 13 9 522.0 10 26 543.3 6 5 524.8 9

Santa Fe 2 463.0 12 7 386.3 16 17 538.9 7 6 556.3 3



ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 10 512.3 12 18 499.9 14 15 528.5 8 1 476.0 16

Santa Fe 10 463.6 11 25 484.9 9 7 546.1 5 1 592.0 2











TABLE 14. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN OBSTETRIC SCORES


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 9 574.9 1 21 499.1 13 13 557.2 3 4 559.3 2

Santa Fe 9 486.6 10 18 441.8 15 6 527.2 4 2 621.5 1



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 2 554.5 4 14 510.8 11 21 550.4 6 6 536.5 7

Santa Fe 3 490.7 9 7 496.4 8 13 469.2 12 2 520.0 5



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 3 419.0 16 9 508.8 12 26 517.1 10 5 551.4 5

Santa Fe 2 459.5 14 7 387.4 16 17 562.7 2 6 516.3 6



ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 10 484.9 14 18 520.1 9 15 534.3 8 1- 439.0 15

Santa Fe 10 467.5 13 25 481.2 11 7 511.0 7 1 561.0 3











TABLE 15. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN PSYCHIATRIC SCORES


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 9 543.0 10 21 534.1 13 13 595.8 3 4 599.5 2

Santa Fe 9 456.4 10 18 439.2 14 6 578.0 4 2 616.5 2



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 2 607.5 1 14 539.4 12 21 575.0 6 6 577.5 5

Santa Fe 3 427.7 15 7 445.9 13 13 490.5 8 2 587.5 3



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 3 545.7 11 9 555.1 8 26 559.5 7 5 585.0 4

Santa Fe 2 486.0 9 7 352.1 16 17 530.5 7 6 543.0 5



ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

U of F 10 513.4 15 18 519.9 14 15 551.5 9 1 434.0 16

Santa Fe 10 449.8 12 25 455.4 11 7 537.9 6 1 663.0 1











TABLE 16. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN.SCORE ON TOTAL
STATE BOARD EXAMINATION


ISTJ

N Mean Rank

9 2740.4 4

9 2328.0 12


ISFJ

N Mean Rank

21 2479.6 14

18 2251.4 15


INFJ

N Mean Rank

13 2803.5 3

6 2714.8 3


INTJ

N Mean Rank

4 2885.0 1

2 3006.5 1


ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

2 2828.5 2 14 2520.9 11 21 2698.9 5 6 2651.8 6

3 2278.0 14 7 2398.7 8 13 2344.2 11 2 2656.0 5



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank N Mean Rank

3 2365.3 15 9 2600.4 10 26 2631.9 7 5 2628.4 8

2 2360.0 10 7 1851.6 16 17 2683.2 4 6 2612.3 6


N

U of F 10

Santa Fe 10


ESTJ

Mean Rank

2502.9 13

2309.9 13


ESFJ

Mean Rank

2504.9 12

2360.1 9


ENFJ

Mean Rank

2620.7 9

2580.1 7


ENTJ


Mean Rank

2220.0 16

2923.0 2


U of F

Santa Fe


U of F

Santa Fe








U of F

Santa Fe











TABLE 17. THE MEDIAN


TEST COMPARING 16 MBTI TYPES ON STATE BOARD
EXAMINATION SCORES


Variable Chi Square df P



Medical Score 12.55 15 .70
Surgical Score 4.75 15 .99
Pediatric Score 13.08 15 .70
Obstetric Score 9.59 15 .90
Psychiatric Score 13.17 15 .70
Total Score 15.43 15 .50






TABLE 18. MEDIAN BOARD SCORES BY TYPE


Type Medical Surgical Pediatric Obstetric Psychiatric Total


ESTJ 465 477 482 470 503 2414
ESTP 432 458 516 433 508 2355
ESFJ 476 487 502 501 502 2513
ESFP 441 473 474 488 475 2409
ENTJ 456 533 534 500 549 2572
ENTP 496 479 524 541 550 2518
ENFJ 509 495 525 527 549 2635
ENFP 543 513 546 528 549 2762
ISTJ 513 516 539 555 507 2659
ISTP 463 442 490 491 441 2438
ISFJ 453 484 462 491 492 2421
ISFP 476 484 501 524 533 2457
INTJ 623 544 628 574 604 2931
INTP 523 473 564 550 583 2656
INFJ 537 570 546 546 607 2752
INFP 502 486 536 524 554 2568











Results showed type to be significantly related at the .05 level

to Total Board scores and to Medical, Obstetric, and Pediatric sub-

scale scores. Type was not significantly related to Surgical or

Pediatric subscale scores. These results are summarized in Table 19.

This analysis also supports rejection of the hypothesis that there is

no relationship between performance on Boards or on subscales of Boards

and psychological type.



TABLE 19. EFFECT OF TYPE ON STATE BOARD SCORES: WHITES ONLY



Variable df F P


Medical Score 15/254 1.83 .03
Surgical Score 15/254 1.17 .29
Pediatric Score 15/254 1.54 .09
Obstetric Score 15/254 2.02 .01
Psychiatric Score 15/254 2.39 .003
Total Score 15/254 2.10 .005


Analysis of whites only produced results resembling those of the

total population. That is, there were no significant (P=.05) inter-

actions between type and school or between any pair of MBTI types.

Also, white subjects at the University of Florida have a significantly

higher (P=.05) Psychiatric score than white students at Santa Fe.


Consideration of Age

On the average, Santa Fe subjects were significantly older (P=.05)

than University of Florida subjects. It was postulated that maturity











may influence performance on Boards. Therefore, all participants were

placed into either an under 21 year old group or a 21 year old and over

group. Both groups were analyzed for variation in scores according to

type.

For the group under 21 years old, results showed subjects at the

University of Florida scored significantly higher (P=.05) than sub-

jects at Santa Fe on all subscales and on total Board score. Medical

score, Psychiatric score, and total Board score were also significantly

related to type for all subjects under 21 years. The Scheffe Method

of multiple comparisons, however, found no differences (significant at

.05 level) between any pair of the 16 MBTI type classifications or

between any single or double pair of MBTI preferences. Interaction

between school and type was not significant at the .05 level. Sources

of variation for all subjects under 21 years are summarized in Table 20.



TABLE 20. EFFECT OF TYPE ON STATE BOARD SCORES: ALL SUBJECTS
UNDER 21

Variable df F P



Medical Score 14/134 1.72 .0565
Surgical Score 14/134 1.81 .0417
Pediatric Score 14/134 1.18 .2994
Obstetric Score 14/134 1.51 .1171
Psychiatric Score 14/134 2.34 .0065
Total Score 14/134 2.01 .0208











For the group 21 years and older, only Psychiatric scores were

significantly higher (P=.05) at the University of Florida than at

Santa Fe. Unlike the group under 21 years, type was significantly

related to Pediatric score. No other subscale score was significant

at the .05 level for the group 21 and over. Again there were no sig-

nificant (P=.05) differences between any pair of the 16 MBTI type

classifications or between any single or double pair of MBTI prefer-

ences. There were insufficient subjects in the sample to test for

interaction between school and type. Sources of variation for all

subjects 21 years and over are summarized in Table 21.



TABLE 21. EFFECT OF TYPE ON STATE BOARD SCORES: ALL SUBJECTS
21 AND OVER

Variable df F P


Medical Score 15/119 1.26 .2330
Surgical Score 15/119 .47 .9509
Pediatric Score 15/119 2.03 .0182
Obstetric Score 15/119 1.71 .0574
Psychiatric Score 15/119 1.63 .0755
Total Score 15/119 1.51 .1097






Consideration of Age and Race

Subjects were also grouped by race and age. Due to small sample

size, blacks were not analyzed separately.' Analysis of variance showed

whites under 21 years at the University of Florida scored higher (P=

.05) than whites of a similar age at Santa Fe on all subscales and on











total Board score. Medical score, Surgical score, Obstetric score,

Psychiatric score, and total Board score were all significantly related

to type. Again there were no significant (P=.05) differences between

any pair of the 16 MBTI type classifications or between any single or

double pair of MBTI preferences. There were not enough subjects in

this sample to test for interaction between school and type. Sources

of variation for white subjects under 21 years are summarized in

Table 22.



TABLE 22. EFFECT OF TYPE ON STATE BOARD SCORES: WHITE
SUBJECTS UNDER 21

Variable df F P


Medical Score 14/130 2.06 .0178
Surgical Score 14/130 2.13 .0140
Pediatric Score 14/130 1.17 .3026
Obstetric Score 14/130 1.81 .0427
Psychiatric Score 14/130 2.30 .0077
Total Score 14/130 2.28 .0083


Analysis of variance of the white group 21 years and over pro-

duced no results significant at the .05 level. Sources of variance

for this group are summarized in Table 23.

Subjects who passed Boards were compared by age and race with

subjects who did not pass Boards. A score-of 350 on each subscale is

considered passing in most states (including Florida) and was used to

determine pass-fail in this study.











TABLE 23. EFFECT OF TYPE ON STATE BOARD SCORES: WHITE
SUBJECTS 21 YEARS AND OVER

Variable df F P


Medical Score 14/98 .88 .5844
Surgical Score 14/98 .66 .8172
Pediatric Score 14/98 1.70 .0635
Obstetric Score 14/98 1.45 .1393
Psychiatric Score 14/98 1.14 .3310
Total Score 14/98 1.14 .3327





A comparison of blacks to whites on pass-fail showed significant

differences for both age groups. A disproportionate number of blacks

are found among those failing Boards regardless of age. Results are

summarized in Table 24.



TABLE 24. BLACKS COMPARED TO WHITES ON PASS-FAIL BY AGE


Population Chi Square df P



Age 21 and over 42.11 1 .0001


Age under 21 10.92 1 .0011






A comparison of type by pass-fail showed no significant results

at the .05 level. Type of those who fail Boards does not appear to be

significantly different from the type of those who pass. Figures are

summarized in Table 25.











TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF TYPE BY PASS-FAIL


Population Chi Square df P


Whites

21 years and over 13.62 15 .5554

Under 21 years 12.73 14 .5480


All

21 years and over 19.78 15 .1801

Under 21 years 8.96 14 .8327


Interpretation of Data


Limitations of the Study

Any interpretation of the data had to be done within the limits

imposed by the study. Few blacks or males were available for the study

and no attempt was made to analyze them separately. A trend in recent

years to provide educational opportunities for minorities may have

introduced a selection bias.

The graduates could not be selected at random. Selecting from

those available in order to have all 16 types represented may have

inserted some degree of bias into the findings.

Participants were from two schools in the same geographical area.

The close proximity may or may not have affected the results. It was

a possible limitation.

Insufficient numbers of each type restricted analysis and inter-

pretation of the data.


















CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Summary


Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that there

exists a relationship between Jungian psychological type and perfor-

mance on State Board Examinations for nursing.


Questions for Study

This study sought to find answers to the following questions:

1. Can psychological types be identified that perform

significantly different than other types on Boards?

2. Are there types that perform consistently well on

Boards or on sections of Boards?

3. Are there types that score consistently low on

Boards or on sections of Boards?

4. Is performance on Boards by type independent of

educational setting?


Design of the Study

This study was designed to explore the relationship between per-

formance on the MBTI and performance on Boards.











The Participants

Three hundred and twelve graduates from two schools were involved

in this study. This total includes 135 associate degree (Santa Fe

Community College) graduates and 177 baccalaureate (University of

Florida) graduates. Of the associate degree graduates, 20 were black

females and nine were white males. All the rest were white females.

Six of the baccalaureate graduates were black females and 10 were

white males. The rest were white females.


Data on Psychological Type

The data on psychological type were obtained by using the Myers-

Briggs Type Indicator. As a result of testing, participants were

classified according to four dichotomous dimensions: 1. Extraversion-

Introversion, 2. Sensing-Intuition, 3. Thinking-Feeling, and 4. Judging-

Perceiving. Combining the four letters identifying participants' pref-

erences resulted in sixteen type classifications.


Data on State Board Scores

The data from the State Board Examination consisted of scores on

five subscales: 1. Medical Nursing, 2. Surgical Nursing, 3. Pediatric

Nursing, 4. Psychiatric Nursing, and 5. Obstetric Nursing. The five

subscale scores were collected individually and combined to determine

a total Board score for each participant.


Analysis and Interpretation of the Data

The object of this analysis was to find the relationships, if

any, between Board scores and personality type. It was also the object

of this analysis to discover if these relationships were different for












baccalaureate graduates than for associate degree graduates.

More specifically the following seven null hypotheses were tested:

1. There is no significant relationship between perfor-

mance on State Board Examination and psychological

type.

2. There is no significant relationship between per-

formance on the subscales of State Board Examina-

tion and psychological type.

3. There is no one type which performs consistently

higher on the State Board Examination.

4. There is no one type which performs consistently

higher on the subscales of the State Board Exam-

ination.

5. There is no one type which performs consistently

lower on the State Board Examination.

6. There is no one type which performs consistently

lower on the subscales of the State Board Exam-

ination.

7. Performance by type does not differ between

Associate Degree and Baccalaureate Degree graduates.

No hypotheses were made concerning race, age, or sex because of

the small number of graduates in each group, but the data on race, age,

and sex were tabulated and used to check for confounding variables.

There were significantly more blacks in the Santa Fe population. The

Santa Fe population was older on the average and more variable with

respect to age than the University of Florida population.

The Chi Square test of independence was used to compare the two











populations with respect to distribution of type. There were signifi-

cantly more ESFJ types in the Santa Fe population. Otherwise, the

distribution of types in the two populations appeared to be the same.

Using a two-factor Analysis of Variance and a .05 level of sig-

nificance, there was no difference between the two populations on four

of five subscale scores. There was a difference on Psychiatric score

with University of Florida graduates having the highest mean.

Analysis of Variance was used to test for interaction between

school and type. There was no significant (P=.05) interaction. Con-

sequently, the hypothesis that performance by type would not differ

between associate degree and baccalaureate degree graduates was not

rejected.

An F value significant at the .05 level was obtained for MBTI

type on the Analysis of Variance of total Board scores. The hypothe-

sis of no relationship between performance on Board and psychological

type was rejected.

Significant F values (P=.05) for type were obtained for Medical

scores, Pediatric scores, Obstetric scores, and Psychiatric scores.

Therefore, the hypothesis of no relationship between performance on

subscales and psychological type could also be rejected.

No relationship, significant at the .05 level, could be found be-

tween performance on the Surgical subscale and type.

The Scheffe Method of multiple comparison was used to make all

pair-wise comparisons generated by classifying subjects according to

one, two, and four MBTI preferences. All pair-wise comparisons fell

short of significance at the .05 level. The Median Test was also used

to compare all 16 MBTI types on each of the five subscales. Again,











differences fell short of significance. Based on the Scheffe Method

of multiple comparisons and on the Median Test, it was not possible

to identify types which perform consistently higher or lower than

other types on Boards or on subscales of Boards; therefore, hypothe-

ses three through six were not rejected.

Analysis of Variance proceedings were done under several condi-

tions: whites only, whites under 21, whites over 21, all subjects

under 21, and all subjects over 21. Analysis under these conditions

supported rejection of the hypothesis that there is no relationship

between performance on Boards or on subscales of Boards and psycho-

logical type. University of Florida subjects under 21 years old

scored significantly higher (P=.05) than subjects at Santa Fe on all

subscales and on total Board score. Analysis of the white group 21

years and over produced no results significant at the .05 level.

A comparison of type by pass-fail using a Chi Square statistic

showed no significant results at the .05 level. A comparison of blacks

to whites on pass-fail showed that blacks fail more often than whites.



Conclusions


The results of the study warrant the following conclusions:

1. There is a relationship between Board scores and type.

2. This relationship exists for Medical, Pediatric,

Obstetric, Psychiatric, and total Board score.

3. It is not possible to differentiate which types are

likely to score high and which types are likely to

score low with the small sample sizes used in this

study.











4. Scores differ by school on the Psychiatric subscale.

University of Florida graduates have higher scores

than Santa Fe graduates.

5. There is no evidence of interaction between type and

school. Performance by type does not differ between

the associate degree and baccalaureate degree graduates.

6. There are fewer significant differences on Board scores

when the Analysis is restricted to whites only.

7. Black participants of all ages tend to fail more often

than whites.

8. Younger (under 21) University of Florida graduates

score higher on all subscales and on total Boards than

younger Santa Fe graduates.

9. The effect of type on Board scores is stronger in the

younger group (under 21) than in the older group.



Discussion


Analysis of Variance showed a relationship between performance

on total Boards and type, and between performance on four of five sub-

scales and type. There was no relationship between Surgical scores

and type significant at the .05 level. The Surgical subtest involving

more concrete, factual content, may require lower order thinking pro-

cesses. Since the answers are more apt to be either right or wrong,

the N has no use for his superior ability to form relationships;

therefore, there would be no difference in performance by type.

Although .there seems to be a relationship between type and per-

formance on Boards, it was not possible to differentiate which types











are likely to score high and which types are likely to score low.

Individual differences between types are probably slight and fall short

of significance even though the aggregate of differences can be shown

to be significant. Dividing samples according to 16 type classifica-

tions or single and double type preferences resulted in small sample

sizes and restricted statistical treatment.

In theory, IN types should score higher than ES types on measures

of aptitude and achievement. Failure to detect a significant differ-

ence between these two type categories may be due to insufficient sub-

jects in each category. Since Boards test application of knowledge, it

is also possible that IN types have no real advantage over ES types.

Scores differ by school on the Psychiatric subscale. This result

probably reflects a difference in the instructional programs of the

two schools.

There is no evidence of interaction between type and school. In

other words, performance by type does not differ between the associate

degree and baccalaureate degree graduates. This might be explained by

the stability of type. That is, preferences are not easily affected by

external conditions. Another possible explanation is that neither

school uses type to identify learning styles and to plan programs

accordingly.

Black participants of all ages tend to fail Boards more often than

whites. Perhaps this represents a cultural bias of Boards. It could

also reflect a selection bias. That is, a trend in recent years to

provide educational opportunities for minorities may have caused educa-

tionally disadvantaged blacks to be included with better prepared whites.

There are fewer significant differences on Board scores when the











analysis is restricted to whites only. Since blacks tend to fail

more often than whites and since blacks are predominantly -S-J types,

it would appear that one of the variables producing a difference in

the aggregate may well be the S-J factor.

Younger (under 21) University of Florida graduates score higher

on all subscales and on total Boards than younger Santa Fe graduates.

This may suggest that younger students with an additional two years

academic experience have an advantage on Boards.

The effect of type on Board scores is stronger in the younger

group (under 21) than in the older group. In theory, maturity in the

use of type permits one to use whatever process is appropriate to the

task. This in effect, would reduce the influence of type upon Board

scores. The older group may have sufficient maturity to achieve this

effect.



Recommendations


Research

Further study and research should be undertaken.

1. By increasing sample size and representativeness as

to type, it would be possible to identify types

scoring high and types scoring low on Boards and on

subscales of Boards.

2. A large enough black sample is needed to compare the

effects of type on Board scores wfihin black groups

and between black and white groups.











3. A study comparing types of blacks who passed Boards

with types of blacks who failed Boards before deseg-

regation would be useful.

4. More specific study of the Surgical scores is needed

to identify why type performance differs here and

not in the other areas.

5. Graduates from a wide geographical area should be

studied to eliminate regional influences.


Education

1. If it is desirable to improve the performance of

selected types, the learning styles of those types

should be identified and reinforced.

2. Investigation is needed to discover which types

among blacks fail Boards most often.

3. If in fact the effect of type is more pronounced

for the younger group (under 21) then learning

programs should be developed differently for the

younger and for the older age groups to facilitate

learning for both groups.

4. If it is desirable to differentiate baccalaureate

performance from associate degree performance,

both Psychiatric instructional programs should be

evaluated.

































APPENDIX A

CHARACTERISTICS OF MYERS-BRIGGS TYPES











TABLE 26. CHARACTERISTICS OF MYERS-BRIGGS PERSONALITY TYPES
IN HIGH SCHOOL*


ISTJ

Serious, quiet, earns his success

by earnest concentration and un-

hurried thoroughness. Logical and

orderly in his work and dependable

in all he does. Sees to it that

everything he touches is well

organized. Takes responsibility

of his own accord. Makes up his

own mind as to what should be

accomplished and works toward it

steadily, regardless of protests

or distractions.


ISTP

Quiet, reserved, a sort of cool

onlooker at life, observing

and analyzing it with detached

curiosity and unexpected flashes

of original humor. Interested

mainly in mechanics, in cars, in

sports and in business. Exerts

himself only as much as he

considers actually necessary,

even if he happens to be a star

athlete.


ISFJ

Quiet, friendly, responsible and

conscientious. Works devotedly

to meet his obligations and serve

his friends and school. Thorough

and painstaking, accurate with

figures, but needs time to master

technical subjects, as reasoning

is not his strong point. Patient

with detail and routine. Loyal,

considerate, concerned with how

other people feel even when they

are in the wrong.


ISFP

Retiring, quietly friendly,

sensitive, hates argument of

any kind, is always too modest

about his abilities. Has no

wish to be a leader, but is a

loyal, willing follower. Puts

things off to the last minute

and beyond. Never really drives

himself about anything, because

he enjoys the present moment and

does not want it spoiled.











ESTP

Matter-of-fact, doesn't worry or

hurry, always has a good time.

Likes mechanical things, cars and

sports, with friends on the side.

A little blunt and insensitive.

Can take school or leave it.

Won't bother to follow a wordy

explanation, but comes alive when

there is something real to be

worked, handled or taken apart.

Can do math and technical stuff

when he sees he will need it.



ESTJ

Practical, realistic, matter-

of-fact, with a natural head for

business. Likes the mechanics

of things. Not interested in

subjects that he sees no actual

use for, but can apply himself

when necessary. Is good at

organizing and running school

activities, but sometimes rubs

people the wrong way by ignoring

their feelings and viewpoints.


ESFP

Outgoing, easy-going, uncritical,

friendly, very fond of a good time.

Enjoys sports and making things,

restless if he has to sit still.

Knows what's happening and joins

in helpfully. Literal-minded,

tries to remember rather than to

reason, is easily confused by

theory. Has good common sense

and practical ability, but is not

at all interested in study for

its own sake.




ESFJ

Warm-hearted, talkative, popular,

conscientious, interested in every-

one, a born cooperator and active

committee member. Has no capacity

for analysis or abstract thinking,

and so has trouble with technical

subjects, but works hard to master

the facts in a lesson and win ap-

proval. Works best with plenty of

praise and encouragement. Always

doing something nice for someone

in a practical way.











INFJ

Gifted and original student who

succeeds through combination of

intelligence, perseverance, and

desire to please. Puts his best

efforts into his work because he

wouldn't think of doing less than

his best. Quiet, conscientious,

considerate of others, widely re-

spected if not popular, but suf-

fers socially from unwillingness

to compromise where a principle

or conviction is involved.


INFP


Particularly enthusiastic about

books, reads or tells the parts

he likes best to his friends. In-

terested and responsive in class,

always attentive and quick to see

what the teacher is leading up to.

Has a warm, friendly personality

but is not sociable just for the

sake of sociability and seldom

puts his mind on his possessions

or physical surroundings.


INTJ

Has a very original mind and a

great amount of drive which he

uses only when it pleases him.

In fields which appeal to his

imagination he has a fine power

to organize a job or piece of

work and carry it through with or

without the help of others. He

is always sceptical, critical

and independent, generally

determined, and often stubborn.

Can never be driven, seldom led.


INTP


Quiet, reserved, brilliant in

exams, especially in theoretical

or scientific subjects. Logical

to the point of hair-splitting.

Has no capacity for small talk

and is uncomfortable at parties.

Primarily interested in his

studies and wouldn't care to be

president of his class. Liked by

his teachers for his scholarship

and by the few fellow-students

who get to know him for himself.











ENFP

Warmly enthusiastic, high-spirited,

ingenious, imaginative, can do al-

most anything that interests him.

Quick with a solution for any diffi-

culty and very ready to help people

with a problem on their hands. Of-

ten relies on his spur-of-the-moment

ability to improvise instead of pre-

paring his work in advance. Can

usually talk his way out of any jam

with charm and ease.



ENFJ

Responsive and responsible. Feels a

real concern for what others think

and want, and tries always to handle

things with due regard for the other

fellow's feelings and desires. Can

lead a group discussion or present a

proposal with ease and tact. Socia-

ble, popular, active in school af-

fairs, but puts time enough on his

lessons to do good work.


ENTP

Quick, ingenious, gifted in many

lines, lively and stimulating com-

pany, alert and outspoken, argues

for fun on either side of any ques-

tion. Resourceful in solving new

and challenging problems, but tends

to neglect routine assignments as

a boring waste of time. Turns to

one new interest after another.

Can always find excellent reasons

for whatever he wants.



ENTJ

Hearty, frank, able in studies and

a leader in activities. Particu-

larly good in anything requiring

reasoning and intelligent talk,

like debating or public speaking.

Well-informed and keeps adding to

his fund of knowledge. *May be a

bit too positive in matters where

his experience has not yet caught

up with his self-confidence.


* I. B. Myers, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Manual (Princeton: New
Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1962)












TABLE 27. EFFECTS OF THE COMBINATIONS OF PERCEPTION AND JUDGMENT IN
IN MYERS-BRIGGS PERSONALITY TYPES*


People who
prefer


focus their
attention on


and handle
these with


Thus they
tend to be


and find
scope for
their
abilities
in


SENSING
+ THINKING


Facts


Impersonal
analysis


Practical
and matter-
of-fact


Production
Construc-
tion
Accounting
Business
Economics
Law
Surgery
Etc.


SENSING
+ FEELING


Facts


Personal
warmth


Sociable
and
friendly


Sales
Service
Customer
relations
Welfare
work
Nursing
General
practice
Etc.


INTUITION
+ FEELING


Possibili-
ties


Personal
warmth


Enthusi-
astic and
insightful


Research
Teaching
Preaching
Counseling
Writing
Psychology
Psychiatry
Etc.


INTUITION
+ THINKING


Possibili-
ties


Impersonal
analysis


Logical and
ingenious


Research
Science
Invention
Securities
analysis
Management
Pathology
Etc.


* I.B. Myers, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Manual. (Princeton, New
Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1962), (17, p. 64).

































APPENDIX B

DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES










TABLE 28. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF SANTA FE WHITE MALES
21 YEARS AND OLDER
N=8




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N=2 25% N=0 % N=0 % N=0 %





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N=0 % N=l 13% N=0 % N=0 %




ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N=0 % N=0 % N=2 % N=0 %





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N=1 13% N=1 13% N=l 13% N=0 %


One ENFP male was less than 21 years old.











TABLE 29. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE SANTA FE FEMALES
21 YEARS AND OLDER
N=57




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N=3 5% N=8 14% N=2 4% N=2 4%





ISTP ISFP INFP TNT'

N=2 4% N=2 4% N=3 5% N=0 %





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N=1 2% N=2 4% N=6 11% N=4 7%





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N=6 11% N=10 18% N=5 9% N=1 2%











TABLE 30. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE SANTA FE FEMALES
LESS THAN 21 YEARS OLD
N=49




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N=0 % N=5 10% N=4 8% N=O %





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N=1 2% N=3 6% N=9 18% N=2 4%





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N=1 2% N=4 8% N=7 14% N=2 4%





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N=1 2% N=9 18% N=1 2% N=0 %











TABLE 31.


TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF SANTA FE BLACK FEMALES
21 YEARS AND OLDER
N=16


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N=2 13% N=4 25% N=O % N=0 %





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N=0 % N=0 % N=1 % N=0 %





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N=0 % N=1 % N=1 6% N=0 %





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N=2 13% N=5 32% N=0 % N=0 %











TABLE 32. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF SANTA FE BLACK FEMALES
LESS THAN 21 YEARS OLD
N=4



ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N=2 50% N=1 25% N=O % N=O %





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N=0 % N=l 25% N=0 % N=0 %





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N=0 % N=0 % N=0 % N=0 %





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N=0 % N=0 % N=0 % N=0 %










TABLE 33. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
WHITE MALES 21 YEARS AND OLDER
N=10




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N=0 % N=1 10% N=0 % N=0 %





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N=0 % N=0 % N=2 20% N=0 %





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N=1 10% N=0 % N=2 20% N=0 %





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N=2 20% N=0 % N=1 10% N=1 10%











TABLE 34. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
WHITE FEMALES 21 YEARS AND OLDER
N=53




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N=3 6% N=5 9% N=4 8% N=0 %





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N=1 2% N=4 8% N=5 9% N=3 6%





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N=0 % N=2 4% N=8 15% N=2 4%





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTP

N=3 6% N=6 11% N=7 13% N=0 %











TABLE 35. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
WHITE FEMALES LESS THAN 21 YEARS OLD
N=108




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N=4 4% N=13 12% N=8 7% N=4 4%





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N=1 1% N=10 9% N=14 13% N=3 3%





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N=2 2% N=7 6% N=16 15% N=3 3%





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N=4 4% N=12 11% N=7 6% N=0 %











TABLE 36. TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
BLACK FEMALES OVER 21 YEARS OLD
N=5




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

N=l 20% N=2 40% N=1 20% N=0 %





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

N=0 % N=0 % N=0 % N=0 %





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

N=0 % N=0 % N=0 % N=0 %





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N=l 20% N=0 % N=0 % N=0 %


One ISTJ female was less than 21 years old.

































APPENDIX C

BOARD SCORES COMPARED ACCORDING TO El AND SN PREFERENCES











TABLE 37. COMPARISON OF


IS
Score
(n=83)


TOTAL AND SUBSCALE MEANS BY MBTI QUADRANTS


IN ES EN
(n=67) (n=84) (n=78)


Medical


Surgical


Pediatric


Obstetric


Psychiatric


Total


471.01


485.57


492.93


496.31


497.42


2443.24


511.43


511.61


542.94


534.37


566.22


2652.88


462.77


475.79


484.93


480.74


481.50


2385.73


512.22


500.19


539.33


531.49


549.78


2633.01
















0 0o C> o Cl)

LI )\ LI Cr o- o


I+ +1 + +I +1 +I

















0o r m \0 -D-
0 -1 H 00 00



N 0\ N+ N+









II U') C C H



H *I,
0; C0 CX r.


) *i +i +1 +1 +1 +1 +a
o C1 C 4 03


:LI I 0 co


N N 030 oI 03
o u
P cA) 0 N 03 -.7


i +I +I +I +I + +
I DJ g N- C 00 U)
U C 0n ID H '.0 00 N-
4 1

m 00 CM o



P4 C3 c) 0' C03









N- N- N
H 0
+3 +3 +1 +3 +1 +1


o3 C H0 -a H '0-









0 tI m.7 cn LI
0 N 000 co
H +3 +1 +3 +1 +1 +3


-. 03 (N (N r( c)










:3 0 N- '. 03
H










H H H H


































BIBLIOGRAPHY


















BIBLIOGRAPHY


1. Backman, Margaret E., and Steindler, Frances M. "Let's Examine:
Prediction of Achievement in a Collegiate Nursing Program and
Performance on State Board Examinations." Nursing Outlook Vol.
19, No. 2 (July, 1971) p. 487.

2. Baldwin, Jean P.; Mowbray, Jean K.; and Taylor, Raymond G. "Factors
Influencing Performance on State Board Test Pool Examinations."
Nursing Research Vol. 17, No. 2 (March-April, 1968) pp. 170-172.

3. Brandt, Edna Mae; Hastie, Bettimae; and Schumann, Delores. "Pre-
dicting Success on State Board Examinations." Nursing Research
Vol. 15, No. 1 (Winter, 1966) pp. 62-69.

4. Buros, O.K., Editor. The Sixth Mental Measurement Yearbook. New
Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1970.

5. Campbell, Joseph, Editor. The Portable Jung. Translated by R.F.C.
Hull. New York: The Viking Press, 1971.

6. Conary, Franklin Melvin. An Investigation of the Variability of
Behavioral Response of Jungian Psychological Types to Select
Educational Variables. Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University,
1965.

7. Grant, W. Harold. Behavior of MBTI Types. Research Report, Student
Counseling Service, Auburn University, 1965.

8. Jung, C.G. Psychological Types, 1923. Translated by H.G. Baynes.
New York: Pantheon Books, 1962.

9. Jung, C.G. The Development of Personality. Translated by R.F.C.
Hull. New York: Pantheon Books, 1954.

10. Levy, Nissin; Murphy, Clennie; and Carlson, Rae. "Personality Types
Among Negro College Students." Educational and Psychological
Measurement Vol. 32, No. 3 (Autumn, 1972) pp. 641-653.

11. McCaulley, Mary H. "Description of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator."
Paper presented at the Dean's Symposium, College of Education,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. [November, 1971];
(Multilithed).











12. McCaulley, Mary H. "The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Teaching-
Learning Process." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois. [April 18,
1974]; (Mimeographed).

13. McCaulley, Mary H. "Type and Education." Draft report of a series
of papers prepared to describe the MBTI and its uses. Typology
Laboratory, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. [November,
1971]; (Multilithed).

14. McCaulley, Mary H. "University of Florida Counseling Study." A final
report from Committee #13, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida. [May 31, 1973]; (Multilithed).

15. Miller, Carol; Feldhusen, John F.; and Asher, J. William. "The Pre-
diction of State Board Examination Scores of Graduates of an Asso-
ciate Degree Program." Nursing Research Vol. 17, No. 6 (November-
December, 1968) pp. 555-558.

16. Myers, I.B. Introduction to Type. Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, By the
Author, 1970.

17. Myers, I.B. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Manual. Princeton, New
Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1962.

18. National League for Nursing. "Performance on PNG and the State Board
Examination." Nursing Outlook Vol. 18, No. 6 (June, 1970) pp. 62-
63.

19. National League for Nursing. "The Relationship of State Boards and
Achievement Test Performance." Nursing Outlook Vol. 18, No. 8
(August, 1970) p. 61.

20. Nichols, Robert C., and Holland, John L. "Prediction of the First
Year College Performance of High Aptitude Students." Psychological
Monographs: General and Applied Vol. 77, No. 7, 1963.

21. Papcum, Ida D. "Let's Examine: Results of Achievement Tests and
State Board Tests in an Associate Degree Program." Nursing Outlook
Vol. 19, No. 5 (May, 1971) p. 341.

22. Reed, Cheryl L., and Feldhusen, John F. "State Board Examination
Score Prediction for Associate Degree Nursing Program Graduates."
Nursing Research Vol. 21, No. 2 (March-April, 1972) pp. 149-153.

23. Ruiz, Rene A.; Thurston, Hester I.; Poshek, Neila A. "Intellectual
Factors, Biographical Information, and Personality Variables as
Related to Performance on the Professional Nurse Licensure Examina-
tion." Nursing Research Vol. 16, No. 1 (Winter, 1967) pp. 74-81.

24. Smith, Albert; Irey, Richard K.; and McCaulley, Mary H. "Self-Paced
Instruction and College Student Personalities." Engineering
Education Vol. 63 (March, 1963).











25. Smith, Albert. "A New Strategy for Improving College Teaching."
Creative Notebook International for Presidents Vol. 7, No. 10
(June, 1973).

26. Smith, Albert, and Irey, Richard K. "Personality Variables and the
Improvement of College Teaching." Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting, American Educational Research Association, Chicago,
Illinois. [April 18, 1974]; (Mimeographed).

27. Stricker, Lawrence J.; Schiffman, Harold; and Ross, John. "Pre-
diction of College Performance with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator."
Educational and Psychological Measurement Vol. 25, No. 4 (Winter,
1965) pp. 1081-1095.

28. von Franz, Maria-Louise, and Hillman, James. Lectures on Jung's
Typology. New York: Spring Publications, 1971.

29. Wicks, Frances G. The Inner World of Childhood. Revised edition.
New York: Signet Classics, 1966.


















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


David Dean Williams was born in Ohio. He received a Bachelor

of Science in Nursing degree from Michigan State University and worked

as a staff nurse in pediatrics.

In 1970, after receiving a Master of Nursing degree, he worked

as an instructor and later as an assistant professor of pediatric

nursing. In 1973, he began full-time advanced study in education at

the University of Florida.

Mr. Williams is currently employed as a graduate research asso-

ciate at the University of Florida, College of Nursing.











I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.





James'W. Hensel, Chairman
Professor of Education



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.





Arthur J. Lewis'
Professor of Edcation



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.





Dorris B. Payne
Assistant Professor of Nursing



This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College
of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


June, 1975



Dean, College of Education


Dean, Graduate School













































UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
11111111111II l llllll3 1262 08553 6411 llll11
3 1262 08553 6141