<%BANNER%>

Cross-National Construct Equivalence of School-Age Children's Temperament Types as Measured by the Student Styles Questi...


PAGE 1

CROSS-NATIONAL CONSTRUCT E QUIVALENCE OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDRENS TEMPERAMENT TYPES AS MEASURED BY THE STUDENT STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE By NICHOLAS F. BENSON A DISSERATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Nicholas F. Benson

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my committee members. First, this project would not have been possible without my dissertation chair, Dr. Thomas Oakland. His interests in temperament and international outlook on psychology were instrumental to the formulation of this project. His competencies as scholar and mentor were instrumental to the completion of this project. I consider myself exceedingly fortunate to have had the benefit of his guidance and expertise. Second, Dr. Mark Shermis provided invaluable methodological guidance that enabled me to address the proposed research questions. I am indebted to him for the methodological and statistical knowledge I acquired under his tutelage. Third, I would like to thank Drs. Jennifer Asmus and Phillip Clark for their commitment to serve on my committee and their contributions to this project. I also would like to acknowledge my family and the importance of their love. In particular, I would like to thank my wife Grace for affectionately sharing advice and offering encouragement. At last, I would be remiss not to thank my children for the joy they bring to my life. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..............................................................................4 Description and Delimitation of Temperament............................................................4 Ancient Perspectives on Temperament........................................................................7 Hippocrates............................................................................................................7 Galen......................................................................................................................8 Immanuel Kant......................................................................................................8 Eastern Scholars....................................................................................................9 Modern Perspectives on Temperament......................................................................10 Wundts Typology...............................................................................................10 Jungian Typology................................................................................................10 Personal Disposition Theory...............................................................................12 Trait Theorists.....................................................................................................13 Goodness-of-Fit Theory......................................................................................18 Biological Approaches........................................................................................22 Myers/Briggs Type Theory.................................................................................27 Keirsian Theory...................................................................................................28 SSQ Theory.........................................................................................................30 Trait Theory and Type Theory Relationships.....................................................40 Practical Uses of Temperament Concepts..................................................................42 Education.............................................................................................................44 Vocations.............................................................................................................47 Considerations in the Generalizability of Temperamental Constructs.......................48 Developmental Considerations............................................................................48 Gender Considerations........................................................................................50 Cultural Considerations.......................................................................................50 iv

PAGE 5

Measurement...............................................................................................................57 Psychological Tests.............................................................................................57 Validity................................................................................................................58 Test Adaptation...................................................................................................59 Purpose of the Study...................................................................................................66 Research Questions.....................................................................................................67 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................68 Participants.................................................................................................................68 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................69 Procedure....................................................................................................................71 Data Analysis Procedures...........................................................................................72 Factor Analysis....................................................................................................74 Multidimensional Scaling and Cluster Analysis.................................................75 Covariance Structure Analysis Techniques.........................................................76 Data Analysis Procedures used for the Present Study.........................................77 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................81 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................97 Implications................................................................................................................99 Cross-National Implications................................................................................99 Methodological Implications...............................................................................99 Test Validity Implications.................................................................................101 Limitations................................................................................................................103 Directions for Future Research.................................................................................103 APPENDIX A LISTING OF PARCEL ITEMS...............................................................................105 B STANDARDIZED REGRESSION WEIGHTS AND LATENT FACTOR CORRELATIONS FOR THE PARCEL MODEL...................................................106 C CONTENT OF MODIFIED PARCELS..................................................................112 D STANDARDIZED REGRESSION WEIGHTS AND LATENT FACTOR CORRELATIONS FOR THE MODIFIED MODEL...............................................115 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................121 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................132 v

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Temperament categories proposed by Thomas and Chess.......................................21 2-2 Temperament constellations proposed by Thomas and Chess.................................22 2-3 Important conceptual differences between trait and type theories...........................41 4-1 Comparison of fit for the parcel model....................................................................90 4-2 Fit of the parcel model, multi-country analysis........................................................91 4-3 Comparison of fit for the modified model...............................................................93 4-4 Fit of the modified model, multicountry analysis..................................................94 4-5 Fit for identified three-factor models.......................................................................95 4-6 Fit for identified hierarchical models.......................................................................96 4-7 Comparison of competing models............................................................................96 A-1 Parcel items for EI (extroverted-introverted).........................................................105 A-2 Parcel items for PM (practical-imaginative)..........................................................105 A-3 Parcel items for TF (thinking-feeling)...................................................................105 A-4 Parcel items for OL (organized-flexible)...............................................................105 B-1 Standardized regression weights for the Australian sample...................................106 B-2 Standardized regression weights for the Chinese sample......................................107 B-3 Standardized regression weights for the Costa Rican sample................................107 B-4 Standardized regression weights for the Gazan sample.........................................108 B-5 Standardized regression weights for the Nigerian sample.....................................108 B-6 Standardized regression weights for the Philippine sample...................................109 vi

PAGE 7

B-7 Standardized regression weights for the USA sample...........................................109 B-8 Standardized regression weights for the Zimbabwe sample..................................110 B-9 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Australian sample...................110 B-10 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Chinese sample.......................110 B-11 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Costa Rican sample................110 B-12 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Gaza sample...........................111 B-13 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Nigerian sample.....................111 B-14 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Philippine sample...................111 B-15 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the USA sample...........................111 B-16 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Zimbabwe sample..................111 D-1 Standardized regression weights for the Australian sample...................................115 D-2 Standardized regression weights for the Chinese sample......................................115 D-3 Standardized regression weights for the Costa Rican sample................................116 D-4 Standardized regression weights for the Gazan sample.........................................116 D-5 Standardized regression weights for the Nigerian sample.....................................117 D-6 Standardized regression weights for the Philippine sample...................................117 D-7 Standardized regression weights for the USA sample...........................................118 D-8 Standardized regression weights for the Zimbabwe sample..................................118 D-9 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Australian sample...................118 D-10 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Chinese sample.......................119 D-11 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Costa Rican sample................119 D-12 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Gaza sample...........................119 D-13 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Nigerian sample.....................119 D-14 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Philippine sample...................119 vii

PAGE 8

D-15 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the USA sample...........................120 D-16 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Zimbabwe sample..................120 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Keirsian types and their derivation...........................................................................30 4-1 Sixty-nine item Student Styles Questionnaire model.............................................82 4-2 Parcel model.............................................................................................................83 4-3 Modified model........................................................................................................84 4-4 Three-factor model...................................................................................................86 4-5 Hierarchical model...................................................................................................87 4-6 Rationale for analyses..............................................................................................89 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CROSS-NATIONAL CONSTRUCT EQUIVALENCE OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN'S TEMPERAMENT TYPES AS MEASURED BY THE STUDENT STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE By Nicholas Benson May 2005 Chairman: Thomas Oakland Major Department: Educational Psychology Interest in developing tests that can be used internationally has flourished in the last few years. When developing tests for this purpose, it is important to establish cross-national equivalence for the psychological constructs of interest. Measurement of temperament is an important endeavor with international appeal. Information related to temperament can be used to facilitate growth, guide important life decisions, improve individual performance, promote the prevention and intervention of problem behavior, and foster social relationships. Our study first reviewed historical perspectives on temperament constructs. We then explored recent perspectives including type theory, trait theory, and biological perspectives. Practical uses of temperament concepts, considerations in the generalizability of temperament constructs, and measurement issues also were reviewed. Our study was designed to examine the cross-national construct equivalence of school-aged children's temperament types as measured by the Student Style's Questionnaire (SSQ). The SSQ is a x

PAGE 11

forced-choice self-report measure of children's temperament. Development of the SSQ was driven by Jung's theory of temperament as augmented by Myers and Briggs. Results of our study support the conclusion that the SSQ measures the same four bipolar dimensions or styles among children from eight countries: Australia, China, Costa Rica, Gaza, Nigeria, the Philippines, The United States, and Zimbabwe. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION People have attempted to describe and explain individual differences in behavior throughout recorded history. The notion of individual differences is not necessarily judgmental or pejorative. Humans are social creatures. Varied social roles are needed to allow social groups to survive. No one behavioral style is best suited for all social roles. Ironically, the notion of individual differences also implies the existence of similarities. As noted by Bouchard (1996; p.24), an internationally recognized expert in human behavior genetics, "The fact is that in spite of varying cultural content and dramatic differences in behavioral expression, human beings are remarkably similar with respect to their evolved psychological mechanisms." Bouchard suggests that these psychological mechanisms were born of and refined by the process of natural selection. In other words, specific psychological mechanisms produce behavioral styles that have yielded more frequent mating and greater rates of survival, and consequently these mechanisms have been perpetuated. Although a psychological mechanism may yield behavioral styles that much of society views as undesirable, this mechanism may characterize a significant percentage of the population because the mechanism has had survival value (e.g., has contributed to society). Throughout history, scholars have developed behavioral constructs (such as temperament) based on behavioral similarities. Constructs allow people to organize and classify, so that they can better make sense of the world. Although temperament concepts 1

PAGE 13

2 are as old as recorded history, temperament is a relatively new area of scientific research. Temperament has been subject to scientific study for a little more than 50 years. While researchers strive to develop sound theories of temperament, the need for suitable measures of these constructs persists in research and applied settings (e.g., school, vocational, and therapeutic settings). Test users want the best information available, so that they can describe past and current behaviors, attempt to explain why certain behaviors occur, and try to manage behaviors so they are beneficial to the individual and to the community (Thayer, 1995). Information related to temperament also can be used to facilitate growth, guide important life decisions, improve individual performance, promote the prevention and intervention of problem behavior, and foster social relationships. The demand for tests to be used cross-nationally has increased in recent years. Temperament tests are no exception, given the usefulness of information obtained from these tests. However, importing and adapting tests to make clinical, educational, or other important life decisions without first examining the comparative validity of test interpretations across countries is inappropriate. Recently, as evidenced by events such as the 1999 International Conference on Test Adaptation, a number of scholars have actively engaged in studying and refining the process of adapting tests for use cross-culturally and cross-nationally. However, studies using factor analysis or confirmatory factor analysis to investigate the cross-national construct equivalence of temperament measures have yet to be published. Moreover, no evidence was found of attempts to establish the cross-national construct equivalence of either temperament types or personality traits for children. This dearth of research is

PAGE 14

3 partly because of the complex nature of temperament and personality and the tests that assess them. These tests may be objective or projective; may measure unipolar or bipolar variables; and may require responses that are choices rather than right or wrong answers. These complexities hinder the process of acquiring data and comparing test validity across groups (Stafford, 1994). Traditional bias definitions (e.g., slope and intercept bias) and methodology used to establish the boundaries of test interpretations are largely inapplicable to the study of temperament and personality (Stafford, 1994). The purpose of our study was to examine the construct equivalence of a measure of childrens temperaments cross-nationally. Our study examined whether the Student Styles Questionnaire (SSQ), as used in 8 countries, has etic (cultural-universal) qualities. Thus, our study explored whether the SSQ measures the same temperament qualities when used with children in various cultures. If evidence suggests that the SSQ measures the same temperament qualities across countries, then children's temperaments, as measured by the SSQ, may be attributes that transcend cultures. If the evidence suggests otherwise, SSQ interpretations for children outside the United States must consider differences in the constructs underlying temperament preferences. Our study addressed the following three questions: Specific aim 1. Does the SSQ measure the same four bipolar dimensions among children from Australia, China, Costa Rica, Gaza 1 Nigeria, the Philippines, the United States, and Zimbabwe? Specific aim 2. If not, what is the structure of the SSQ in these countries? Specific aim 3. Are the intercorrelations of the dimensions similar across countries? 1 Although Gaza may not be considered a country at this time, for convenience it will be referred to as such throughout this document.

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Student styles theory guided the development of the Student Styles Questionnaire (SSQ). Data from the SSQ were used in our study. Temperament and issues that pertain to its measurement are discussed. The purpose of the study is elaborated and research questions addressed are set forth. Description and Delimitation of Temperament Temperament concepts pertain to consistencies that can be observed in peoples attitudes, preferences, affect, and styles of behaving. Temperament is thought to influence how people choose the path their lives will take and how they react to those experiences that life sends their way. However, temperament generally is not viewed as having a deterministic influence. Instead, the concepts assume a bi-directional interplay between an individuals constitutional traits and environment. Various temperament theories exist. When adopting a theory of temperament, one makes a number of assumptions about human behavior. Theories and their inherent assumptions can constrain research perspectives. Therefore, views of temperament differ according to the purpose of the researchers (e.g., clinical applications versus finding the biological underpinnings of behavior). Researchers adopt a theory that allows them to generate research and test their hypotheses. Thus, each theory needs a unique definition. Consequently, there is no consensus definition of temperament. The term temperament can be thought of as a broad rubric that subsumes specific concepts (Goldsmith & Rieser-Danner, 1986). Despite the lack of a consensus definition, 4

PAGE 16

5 there are convergent ideas regarding temperament (Goldsmith, Buss, Plomin, Rothbart, Thomas, Chess, Hinde, & McCall, 1987). Some of the least contentious ideas held by temperament scholars are as follows: The term temperament refers to a group of related traits rather than a single trait. Temperament refers to the issue of individual differences rather than species-general characteristics. Temperament traits have biological underpinnings. The concept emphasizes continuity in behavioral tendencies. Despite the emphasis on continuity, temperament commonly is viewed as malleable. The concept does not refer to discrete behavioral acts. Rather, temperament traits refer to biases for certain moods, attitudes, and dispositions that affect the probability that behaviors will occur. Although the above points of agreement and others can be delineated, points of divergence may be more striking. Although temperament research is rapidly evolving (Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Teglasi, 1998), competing theories of temperament persist. Consequently, temperament researchers continue to hold divergent assumptions and beliefs about their subject matter. Although researchers hold a plethora of divergent ideas, they all appear to stem from two major points of divergence. The first major point of divergence pertains to the boundaries of temperament (Goldsmith et al., 1987). Researchers disagree as to which behaviors constitute temperament. Criteria proposed include the style of the behavior, the relationship of the behavior to emotional systems, the stability of the behavior, and the heritability of the behavior (Goldsmith et al., 1987). The second major point of divergence pertains to the number of temperament dimensions or traits (Goldsmith et al., 1987). This issue typically is addressed empirically using some form of mathematical

PAGE 17

6 factor extraction and/or model-fitting technique. Although researchers have addressed this issue, the unclear boundaries of temperament cause disagreement on this point. Researchers tend to rename temperament variables, despite their similarity (Rothbart, 1999). Researchers may rename variables in order to highlight the ideas that make their research unique and important, rather than focus on recurring themes in the literature. For example, Kagan (1989) and Thomas and Chess (1977) both hypothesized temperament variables based on response to novelty. Kagan named his variables behavioral approach and behavioral inhibition, while Thomas and Chess named approach or withdrawal variables based on the initial response to new stimuli, and an adaptibility variable based on the ease of responses to new or altered situations. Renaming of variables also may result from the interdisciplinary nature of temperament research. Scholars from diverse disciplines such as behavioral genetics, education, psychophysiology, developmental psychology, personality theory, psychosomatic medicine, and clinical psychiatry (Campos, Barrett, Lamb, Goldsmith, & Stenberg, 1983; Goldsmith et al., 1987) contribute to the temperament literature. Researchers may be unaware of the contributions of other disciplines. Whatever the reason, renaming variables leads to confusion and discontinuity in research. Individual temperament traits are embedded in the context of other temperament traits or variables that constrain their influence (Teglasi, 1998). Moreover, temperament is embedded in the context of personality variables that may mediate or moderate the influence of temperament variables. Personality generally is described as a broader construct than temperament. For example, personality has been conceptualized in the following ways:

PAGE 18

7 As a combination of temperament traits plus ability traits or intelligence (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) As a combination of temperament and dynamic motivational traits that arise in response to the environment (Cattell & Kline, 1977) As a mutual interaction of environmental events, behavior, and personal factors (Bandura, 1977) As a subset of personality (Buss & Plomin, 1984; Strelau, 1987) As the foundation of personality (Kluckhohn & Murray, 1953) As with temperament, there is no consensus definition of personality. Because temperament studies and personality studies often examine the same questions, distinctions between the two constructs may be arbitrary. It is difficult to define relationships between two constructs that have dynamic, evolving definitions. Ancient Perspectives on Temperament Pre-scientific temperament theories (although based on intuition and casual observations) have endured for thousands of years and continue to exert a powerful influence on temperament research, applied practice, and society in general. The most influential Western perspectives have been those offered by Hippocrates, Galen, and Kant. These perspectives and influential perspectives of Eastern scholars are discussed next. Hippocrates The first prominent theory of temperament emerged from ancient Greek culture. In the 4th century B.C., Hippocrates, regarded as the father of medicine, proposed a four humor theory that became the early forerunner of modern neurochemical theories. These humors (i.e., yellow and black bile, blood, and phlegm) were thought to create opposition between warm and cool and between dry and moist bipolar bodily qualities. Hippocrates

PAGE 19

8 attributed differences in rationality, emotionality, and behavior to the balance of these humors. Galen Galen of Pergamon, a second-century physician, elaborated on Hippocrates theory (Kagan, 1994). Galen proposed nine temperament (a word derived from the Latin to mix) types, derived from Hippocrate's four humors. The ideal personality type was believed to result when the four humors combined to form an exquisite balance of the following bodily qualities: warm, cool, dry, and moist. Four less-ideal temperament types resulted from the dominance of one of the four bodily qualities. The final four types that were described as temperamental categories resulted from one pair of qualities dominating the complementary pair (e.g., cool and dry dominating warm and moist). The four temperament categories are as follows: melancholic, sanguine, choleric, and phlegmatic. The melancholic type (cool and dry) has too much black bile, which makes one sad and anxious. The sanguine type (warm and moist) has primarily blood, which makes one enthusiastic and pleasant. The choleric type has too much yellow bile, which makes one irritable and angry. The phlegmatic type has too much phlegm, which makes one's emotions and actions slow. Immanuel Kant Hundreds of years after Galens work, Immanuel Kant, an influential Prussian scientist and philosopher, included a chapter on temperament in his 1798 book Anthropologie. Kant believed that psychology could not be an experimental science. He proposed that anthropology could serve as an alternative way of studying how people actually behave and could provide the information necessary to predict and control

PAGE 20

9 human behavior. Kants book was widely read, and his ideas on temperament were influential in Europe (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Kant, like Galen, believed that humors formed the basis for temperament. However, Kant believed that blood was the most significant component. He proposed four independent temperaments: sanguine, melancholic, choleric, and phlegmatic. The sanguine person is carefree and sociable. The melancholic person is anxious, and eludes happiness. The choleric person is easily annoyed, and suffers most when others refuse to follow his orders. The phlegmatic person is reasonable, persistent, and acts on principle rather than instinct. To Kant, temperament refers to the energetic (choleric vs. phelgmatic) and the emotional (sanguine vs. melancholic) characteristics of behavior. People can be assigned to one of the four independent types based on their dominant behavioral characteristics. According to Kant, there are no compound temperaments (e.g., melancholic-phlegmatic). Eastern Scholars Ancient Eastern scholars, unlike Western scholars, apparently did not use stable constructs such as temperament when developing explanatory theories for behavior (Kagan, 1994). For example, the Chinese theory of human nature (held by the Chinese for at least 2 millenia before Galen expanded on Hippocrates theory) held that universal energy (chi) exists. Chi is regulated by the complementary relationship between the forces of yin (passive and completing) and yang (active and initiating). The balance of yin and yang was thought to regulate physiological and psychological functioning. The energy of chi always is changing, and therefore does not describe stable properties. Ancient Hindu Indians also proposed a theory of human nature that ignored stable, constitutional factors. The Hindus believed that environmental factors (specifically air,

PAGE 21

10 water, and geographic location) influenced bodily substances (specifically spirit, phlegm, and bile); and that this interaction was responsible for observed behavioral consistencies (Garrison & Earls, 1987). Modern Perspectives on Temperament Wundts Typology The founder of experimental psychology, Wilhelm Wundt, proposed the modern view of temperament in 1903 (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Like Galen and Kant, Wundts typology offered four temperaments. However, Wundt changed the uni-dimensional, categorical system offered by Galen and Kant to a quantitative, two-dimensional system. In Wundts system, people can occupy any position (and, moreover, any combination of positions) on the energetic and emotional dimensions offered by Kant. Wundt labeled the dimensions strong emotions as opposed to weak emotions, and changeable as opposed to unchangeable. The position that people occupy in Wundts two-dimensional system is determined by the strength and temporal characteristics of their emotions. Jungian Typology Carl Jung, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, developed an interest in temperament while exploring his theoretical beliefs and how they differed from those of other influential psychoanalysts such as Freud and Adler. Jung found his interest in the delimitation and organization of psychological processes to be a prominent difference. Jung detailed these psychological processes in Psychological Types (Jung, 1971). According to Jung, differences among people can be conceptualized into two types: individual and group. Conceptually, Jungs psychological types are group differences.

PAGE 22

11 Groups of people with a particular psychological type hold similar attitudes toward the world that determine and limit their judgment. Jung believed that Galens classifications were based on affect. Galen seemingly based his classifications on affect because affect is the most common and striking feature of behavior. To Jung, affect constrains attitudes of the conscious mind, and consequently constrains free choice. Thus, Jung was interested in unconscious mental processes such as attitudes and values. Jung believed that one should strive to realize one's self. Jung's concept of self refers to a broad array of psychic phenomena that comprise people's inner world. In realizing the self, people transcend all opposing forces, so that every aspect of their personality is expressed equally. He believed that opposing forces produce energy. With no opposition, there is no energy. His theory focuses on those opposing forces that he believed have the most empirically robust impact on the function of people's attitudes. Jung believed that the principle of opposites governs attitudes. Opposing forces can be thought of as bi-polar dimensions, as everyone has both opposing forces. The dimensions delineated by Jung arise from three qualities: Where one derives energy A focus on practical details versus theory Reliance on thoughts versus feelings when making decisions The first quality results from the tendency of the libido (by which Jung means more than sexual energy) to be directed to the inner self (introversion) or to objects of interest (extraversion). People develop a primary mechanism attitude-type as they develop (i.e., either introversion or extraversion) based on this quality. People develop secondary mechanisms or function-types based on the second and third qualities. Introversion and

PAGE 23

12 extraversion are expressed via four function-types: thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting. Thinking and feeling are considered rational functions, because they use reason, judgment, abstraction, and generalization. Sensing and intuiting are considered irrational functions, because they are based on intensity of ones perception. Jungs psychological types are formed by combining an individuals attitude-type with his or her function-types. According to Jung, people have a tendency to strive for psychic equilibrium. They delude their judgment so they can compensate for the psychic imbalance created by the predominance of their psychological type. The inclusion of this tendency complicates Jungs theory and makes the interpretation of types difficult, which is why no modern psychologist has adopted his theory in its entirety (Eseynck & Eseynck, 1985). Jung was aware that, for the most part, his typology was not understood by others. Jung also was aware that critics tended to assume that his types were not supported by empirical data. Moreover, in the forward to the Argentine edition of his book, he noted that, even in medical circles, an opinion exists that his method of treatment consists of fitting patients into his system and giving them corresponding advice. In the 1937 forward to the seventh Swiss edition, Jung countered that his typology resulted from years of experience as a practicing psychotherapist (experience that is not available to academic psychologists). Thus, Jung believed that sufficient experience as a psychotherapist was needed to fully understand the meaning and value of his typology. Personal Disposition Theory Like Jung, Gordon Allport also was greatly influenced by Freud. Allport, who was born in Indiana, managed to arrange a meeting with Freud in Vienna. Allport was immediately disenchanted by what he perceived as Freud's over-analysis of their

PAGE 24

13 conversation. He believed that the determinism of human behavior is much more complex and varied than the explanations offered by Freuds theory. Allports writings, especially his 1937 book Personality, a Psychological Interpretation, did much to bring an awareness of and interest in personality and temperament to the United States (Lombardo & Foschi, 2002). Allport focused on the study of personal traits. He later changed the term personal traits to personal dispositions to emphasize the importance of unique, individual characteristics. That is, he believed that knowing other peoples traits does not necessarily allow you to understand a particular person. Nevertheless, he did believe that some traits are common to a culture, and are recognized and named by people in the culture (e.g., extraverts and introverts). Common traits are reliably observed and normally distributed. According to Allport, people possess a number of traits. Various traits differently influence behavior. Traits that are sufficiently pervasive to affect all behavior he called cardinal dispositions. He also believed that people typically have five to ten highly characteristic tendencies, which he referred to as central dispositions. He also believed people have specific, focused tendencies that occur only during specific situations. He referred to these traits as secondary dispositions. Psychologists may now refer to them as states. Trait Theorists Contrary to Allports theory and his belief in the individuality of people, researchers such as Raymond Cattell (Cattell & Kline, 1977), Hans Eysenck (Eysenck & Etsebcjm 1985), and J.P. Guilford (Guilford, Zimmerman, & Guilford, 1976) believed that specification equations can be devised and peoples behavior predicted using temperament traits. These researchers shared an interest in using mathematical methods

PAGE 25

14 to study personality. These contemporaries are classified as state-trait theorists. To them, personality has two major aspects: temperament and intelligence. We focused only on the temperament aspect of their work. Armed with their knowledge of mathematics and methodology, trait theorists have done much to improve the scientific rigor of temperament investigation. Trait theorists shared the belief that a scientifically sound structure of personality (which they attempted to uncover via the factor-analytic approach) would allow for the reliable prediction and control of behavior. However, empirical evidence gathered by trait theorists did not support using personality indicators as reliable methods of predicting and controlling behavior. It was argued that intervening variables considerably reduced cross-situational consistency in behaviors, so that prediction was difficult (Eysenck 1982). In search of suitable criteria for evaluating trait theories, Cattell (1982) and Eysenck (1982) proposed that constructs should have a demonstrated heritability component. Cattell and Eysenck used behavioral genetic research methods to estimate the extent to which traits are determined by genetic and environmental influences; and found that their constructs were substantially heritable. The condition of heritability has had a lasting influence on both trait and temperament theorists. Raymond Cattell. According to Cattell, personality research should be the foundation of psychological science (Cattell & Kline, 1977). He believed that viewing psychological process areas (e.g., perception, memory, learning theory, physiological psychology) in isolation provides only a limited glimpse of the whole individual. Instead, he believed that personality is the totality of coexisting variables that influence human behavior. Cattell obtained 4,500 language terms for traits, from a classic study by Allport

PAGE 26

15 and Odbert (1938). He then reduced these terms to a limited number (by first eliminating synonyms, and then using factor analysis) in an attempt to uncover the fundamental structure of human personality. Cattell believed that traits constitute the primary elements of personality. He posited 46 surface traits and 15 source traits. Thirty-six surface traits were obtained by factor analysis, and 10 others were derived from the abnormal psychiatry literature and experimental psychology. He then analyzed the correlations of these 46 surface factors and derived 15 source traits. He also included a 16 th factor, intelligence/ability. According to Cattell, source traits are associated with emotional expression, and the sum of these traits is analogous to an individuals temperament. Source traits (as measured by objective methods and revealed through factor analysis) are relatively stable, and describe how a person does what he does (i.e., his general style and tempo). According to Cattell, why a person does what he does also is determined by dynamic motivational traits that tend to fluctuate in response to the environment. Dynamic motivational traits refer to responses to instinctual goals (i.e., ergs); and reactions to people, objects, or social institutions (i.e., sentiments). Hans Eysenck. Eysenck based his theory on physiology and genetics. However, he also was a confirmed behaviorist who believed in using the principles of learning to make the most of one's genetic endowment. Eysenck viewed personality as growing out of one's genetic inheritance. He placed great importance on individual differences. He believed that researchers working in psychology incorrectly place less value on such differences than do researchers working in other sciences. For example, he wrote that physics and chemistry researchers are aware that one element or alloy does not necessarily behave like another. Therefore, researchers are careful to specify the elements

PAGE 27

16 or alloys with which their experiments or resulting functional equations are concerned. Thus, Eysenck noted the falseness of the assumption that any equation will apply equally to all members of the human species (or to any animal species). Conversely, he believed that idiographic approaches (such as Allport's) went too far. Eysenck aligned his research with the typological approach. Eysenck's approach differed from Cattell's (and from Guilford's) regarding level of analysis. Cattell and Guilford were interested in trait-level analysis. Eysenck proposed that higher-order aggregates (or types derived from further analysis of the intercorrelations of simple traits) were more empirically robust, and thus more deserving of attention. Moreover, Cattell and Guilford focused on normal personality functioning; whereas Eysenck also was interested in identifying traits underlying pathology. Based on his research, Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) proposed three factors, extraversion, psychoticism, and neuroticism. The traits that make up extraversion are sociable, lively, active, assertive, sensation-seeking, carefree, dominant, surgent, and venturesome. The traits that make up psychoticism are aggressive, cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, antisocial, unempathic, creative, and tough-minded. The traits that make up neuroticism are anxious, depressed, guilt feelings, low self-esteem, tense, irrational, shy, moody, and emotional. J.P. Guilford. For more than 25 years, Guilford (Guilford, Zimmerman, & Guilford, 1976) engaged in temperament research using factor analytic methods. Guilford was interested in analysis at the primary trait level, and was unhappy when he found high intercorrelations among primary factors. Guilford believed that factors that measure the greatest number of salient traits would provide more useful information than those that measure a limited number of higher-order traits. The exact number of factors in

PAGE 28

17 Guilford's structure varied as his research progressed and new factors were found. In general, his primary factors closely resemble Eysenck's higher-order factors. In fact, Guilford's factors were used in Eysenck's first studies of extraversion (Cattell & Kline, 1977). Guilford's factors differ from Cattell's mostly because of the factorial methods used to obtain them (Cattell & Gibbons, 1968). Five-Factor Model. On reviewing earlier factor-analytic work and comparing and contrasting his own research with those of other researchers, Norman (1963) noticed that many researchers who used factor-analytic methods had uncovered five basic factors of personality. Researchers tended to disagree on what these factors assessed. Therefore, these factors were assigned a variety of labels, resulting in confusion and disagreements. In response to this labeling dilemma, Norman assigned roman numerals to the factors. Newman (1996a) noted that two of Normans big five factors (I and IV, respectively) are Eysencks extraversion and neuroticism, with extraversion being the most robust of the five factors. McCrae and Costa added an openness to experience factor (one that other researchers had labeled culture or intellect) when developing the original NEO-Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985). The "openness to experience" factor became Norman's Factor V. At a conference in 1982, Lewis Goldberg convinced McCrae and Costa to add Factors II and III to their instrument (Newman, 1996a). Factor II was labeled as "agreeableness" and Factor III as "conscientiousness". Thus, the five factor model (FFM) was born. As McCrae and colleagues hoped, the FFM resulted in cooperative research and cumulative findings for personality psychology. Cross-sectional data from a variety of countries suggest that the factors are transcontextual (McCrae et al., 2000). Within

PAGE 29

18 culture variation in the factors appears much greater than among-culture variation. Moreover, the factors appear to be shared by nonhuman species. For example, owner's ratings of their pets yielded some of the five factors (Gosling & John, 1998); while zookeeper ratings of chimpanzees yielded all five factors, plus a large dominance factor (King & Figueredo, 1997). Based on their own research with the FFM (and other relevant research), McCrae et al. (2000) concluded that personality development appears to be an intrinsic process. Except for extreme influences (e.g., trauma) that can have profound effects, developmental timing appears to be largely under genetic control, and environmental influences appear to have relatively little influence on development. In particular, shared experiences (e.g., being reared by the same parents, or attending the same school) show very little effect. In contrast, environmental influences affect the expression of personality. While most behavioral genetic studies attribute most variance in personality to nonshared experiences, much of this variance can be attributed to method and measurement error. For example, Riemann, Angleitnes, and Strelau (1997) obtained data from multi-informant, multi-method sources to estimate method variance. Only 21 to 34% of nonshared variance results from nonshared experiences such as having different peer groups, or teachers; or external biological sources (e.g., prenatal hormonal environment, or central nervous system damage resulting from trauma or disease). In light of such findings, McCrae and colleagues proposed the traits measured by their personality questionnaires are essentially temperaments (McCrae et al., 2000). Goodness-of-Fit Theory Thomas and Chess began their study of temperament in the 1950s (when learning theory and psychoanalytic theories prevailed, and parents were blamed for childrens

PAGE 30

19 deviance). Thomas and Chess hypothesized that their contemporaries were assigning too much weight to the role of environmental influences on behavior, and too little weight to constitutional factors. Based on their work with disturbed children and adults, they began to believe that many behaviors traditionally associated with purposive-motivational factors were better viewed as non-motivational behavioral styles (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Thomas and Chess (1977) described temperament and behavioral styles similarly. Behavioral style refers to how someone behaves, rather then how well, what (i.e., abilities and content), or why (i.e., motivation). However, they distinguished between the two terms. Behavioral style includes stylistic behavioral characteristics that appear both in infancy as well as later in life, while temperament is restricted to those characteristics that are evident in early infancy. They emphasize that their definition of temperament has no implications for etiology or immutability and merely describes the behavioral phenomena. New behaviors that occur later in life may represent older patterns in a new form as well as qualitatively new psychological characteristics. In other words, they believe the developmental process is continuous as well as discontinuous. Thomas and Chess (1977) characterize development as the complex interplay between children and their environment. The history of this interplay influences future interplay. Because development is complex and without direct causal chains, positive outcomes are possible despite environmental trauma or undesirable genetic endowment. They borrowed the evolutionary concept of goodness of fit elaborated previously by Henderson (1913) to explain the temperament-environment interactive process. In

PAGE 31

20 adopting the concept, Thomas and Chess adopted the assumption that behavioral style cannot be understood outside of the context of the environments in which it occurs. Goodness of fit results when there is consonance between the characteristics of a person (e.g., their capacities and behavioral styles) and the characteristics of the environment (e.g., its expectations and demands). Poorness of fit results when there is considerable dissonance between the person and the environment. Goodness of fit does not imply the absences of stress and conflict. Stress and conflict inevitably occur as people mature into progressively higher levels of functioning and may even serve a constructive role. However, poorness of fit occurs when excessive stress occurs due to a persons inability to meet environmental expectations and demands. Thus, a temperament trait may be influential in some situations and not others as well as at a specific point during one's life and not during others. Thomas and Chess (1977) developed nine categories of temperament based on an inductive content analysis of parent interview protocols for the infancy periods of the first twenty-two children they studied. Qualitative and factor analytic methods were used to form three behavioral constellations. The categories and constellations are summarized in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. Thomas and Chess used undesirable sampling practices in their research. Their first (and most intensively studied) sample, the New York Longitudinal Study (NYLS) sample, was far from representative of the general population. Of the 141 children in the sample, 78% were Jewish, 15% Protestant, and 7% Catholic. Forty percent of the mothers and sixty percent of the fathers had both college education and postgraduate degrees.

PAGE 32

21 Table 2-1. Temperament categories proposed by Thomas and Chess. Adapted with permission from Thomas, A. & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel. (pp. 21-22). Temperament Category Definition Activity Level The motor component of a childs functioning and the diurnal proportion of active and inactive periods Rhythmicity The predictability of biological functions (e.g., hunger, sleep cycles) Approach or Withdrawal The nature of the initial response (mood expression or motor activity) to a new stimulus Adaptibility The ease of adapting responses to new or altered situations Threshold of Responsiveness The intensity level of stimulation needed to evoke a discernible response Intensity of Reaction The energy level of the response (quality or direction of response not considered) Quality of Mood The amount of positive or negative affect displayed Distractibility The degree to which extraneous environmental stimuli interfere with or alter the direction of ongoing behavior Attention Span/Persistence Two related categories: attention span refers to the time spent on an activity while persistence refers to the continuation of an activity despite obstacles Such practices obviously are cause for concern in regards to how these categories and constellations apply to children of parents who are neither Jewish nor well educated. In an attempt to improve the generalizability of their findings by obtaining a sample of contrasting socioeconomic background, Thomas and Chess sampled 95 children of working-class Puerto Rican parents, 86% of whom lived in low-income public housing. Fortunately, other researchers (Carey, 1970; Carey & McDevitt, 1978) have developed questionnaires based on the dimensions proposed by Thomas and Chess and used sounder sampling practices. Their findings support the generalizability of these dimensions beyond the two samples studied by Thomas and Chess.

PAGE 33

22 Table 2-2. Temperament constellations proposed by Thomas and Chess. Adapted with permission from Thomas, A. & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel. (pp. 22-23). Behavioral Constellation Definition Easy Child Characterized by regularity, positive approach responses to new stimuli, high adaptability to change, and mild or moderately intense mood which is mostly positive Difficult Child Characterized by irregularity in biological functions, negative withdrawal to new stimuli, poor adaptability to change, and intense mood expressions which are frequently negative Slow-To-Warm-Up Child Characterized by a combination of negative responses of mild intensity to new stimuli with slow adaptability after repeated contact. Compared to the Difficult Child constellation, this constellation shows mild intensity of reactions and more regularity of biological functions Biological Approaches Although temperaments are hypothesized to be at the interface of biology and behavior, most research on temperament has focused on behavior rather than biology (Bates & Wachs, 1994). The aim of much of this research has been to establish the stability of temperament traits across the life span. In such research, temperament variables typically have been viewed as either substrates of personality (Goldsmith, Lemery, Aksan, Buss, 2000) or as a subset of personality (Strelau, 1987; Buss & Plomin, 1984). Recent research suggests that temperament is analogous to the big five factors of personality (Angleitner & Ostendorf, 1994; McCrae et al., 2000). Some researchers began at the biological level and attempted to link biological processes with behavior. Because research needed to map simple behaviors to neural structures required years and temperaments tend to be complex, experiments designed to study nervous system correlates of temperaments have been difficult. As such, the

PAGE 34

23 majority of researchers studying relationships among temperament behaviors and biology have begun at the level of behavior and then attempted to link behaviors with biological factors (e.g., attempts to find relationships among behaviors that are on the introversion-extraversion temperament dimension and brain structures). This method has been called the top-down approach. The top-down approach is considered to be biological in orientation because it places a strong emphasis on biology and views the roots of behavior as biological (Gunnar, 1990). Three well-known top-down approaches include the behavioral-genetic approach, the behavioral inhibition approach, and the reactivity and self-regulation approach. Behavior-genetic approach. Buss and Plomin (1975) posited four temperaments in their initial theory of temperament: emotionality, activity, sociability, and impulsivity (for which they use the acronym EASI). They established four criteria for deciding what characteristics constitute temperaments: 1) presence in our animal forebears, 2) a strong genetic component, 3) demonstrated stability during the life-span, and 4) adaptive value. In 1984, they revised their theory (Bluss & Plomin, 1984). They dropped impulsivity as a temperament due to the lack of evidence supporting its heritability. Emotionality was referred to as the intensity of a person's reactions to his or her environment. Arousal was described as the component of emotionality with the most influence on individual differences. The other components of emotionality (i.e., feelings and expression) were believed to be less influential. Activity was described as the total energy output of a person (i.e., the degree to which a person is active or sedentary). Sociability was described as the degree to which the presence of others is or is not preferred over solitude.

PAGE 35

24 Like Thomas and Chess, Buss and Plomin adhere to a behavioral style definition of temperament. According to their later theory (Bluss & Plomin, 1984), temperaments constitute bi-directional variables. Temperaments both influence how others respond to a child and mediate environmental affects on the child. In this theory, temperaments are regarded as substrates of personality that are highly heritable and present early in life. The heritability of temperaments has been established using quantitative genetics. Plomin and Saudino (1994) note that adoption studies using objective and observational data clearly show a genetic contribution to temperament, but genetics rarely explain more than half the variance in behavior. They believe that temperament traits are regulated by multiple rather than single genes, and that these genes turn on and off during development in order to regulate as well as in response to developmental processes. They propose that molecular genetics will provide undisputable evidence that heritable temperaments exist. Moreover, they propose that molecular and quantitative methods will be used in combination to answer questions about the stability of temperaments, establish links between normal and abnormal behavior, and investigate interactions and correlations between genotype and environment. Behavioral inhibition approach. Like Buss and Plomin (1984), Kagan considers temperament to be inherited, stable, and manifest during infancy (Kagan, 1989). His work has focused on infants and young children. He takes a biological approach to his research. Thus, he has chosen to focus his study on two temperaments he hypothesized to have empirically observable relationships with biological variables: behavioral approach and behavioral inhibition. Both concepts relate to a child's initial reaction to novelty (e.g, unfamiliar people, objects, and contexts) or challenging situations. He has accumulated

PAGE 36

25 considerable evidence supporting his temperament qualitys physiological markers (e.g., heart rate, pupillary dilation, and cortisol levels). Reactivity and self-regulation approach. Rothbart and Derryberry (1981) defined temperament as constitutionally based individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation. By constitutional, they meant that it is heritable, emerges early in life, and shows stability throughout the life-span. Reactivity referred to individual differences in the excitability or arousal of the nervous system that produce emotional, autonomic, endocrine, behavioral, and other types of responses. Self-regulation referred to the neural and behavioral processes that modulate reactivity. This line of research arose from dissatisfaction with the behavioral style definitions of Thomas and Chess (1977) and Buss and Plomin (1975). Rothbert, Ahadi, and Evans (2000) offer three issues of contention that prompted this alternative to the behavioral style definition. First, temperament traits may not be expressed in all situations. Second, responses may not generalize to all modalities of expression (Rothbart, 1981; Martin, Wisenbaker, & Huttunen, 1994). Third, the study of self-regulation is a useful endeavor absent from behavioral style approaches. Rothbart and Derryberry (1981) hypothesized substrates of personality could be identified by studying infants and identifying the temperamental components of affect, attention, and action. They found that temperament variables emerge at different ages and that developmental processes require the examination of the structure of temperament at different ages. They found infants to be chiefly reactive, that self-regulatory systems often do not emerge until later in life, and that not all reactive systems are present at birth

PAGE 37

26 (e.g., fear). Moreover, they found that reactive emotional systems can have self-regulatory components (e.g., the behavioral inhibition aspect of fear). Bottom-up approaches. Bottom-up biological approaches begin with known biological events and attempts to predict behavioral patterns. While simple behavioral processes may be localized to specific structures in the brain, complex psychological processes such as temperaments are more likely to involve interconnected systems and circuits. Thus, attempts to establish brain-behavior relationships when studying temperament are more difficult than when studying less complex phenomena (Steinmetz, 1994). Moreover, at least some individual differences in behavior are likely to result from differences in neural function. Thus, an understanding of brain-behavior relationships on temperament requires researchers to uncover the neural systems involved in temperament and the factors that lead to individual differences in neural function (Steinmetz, 1994). Nelson (1994) formed hypotheses about relationships that may exist among temperament traits and neural structures. According to his hypotheses, behavioral approach and behavioral inhibition systems are linked with neural structures. The behavioral approach system was described as a system for planning motor movements and directing search behavior toward stimuli. Complex brain functions involve intricate relationships among neural tracts and structures. Nevertheless, an abbreviated explanation of how this system works has been provided by Nelson (1994). The function of this system largely is dictated by two neural structures: the amygdala and the orbitoprefrontal cortex. Although the amygdala has been implicated in a variety of behavioral functions, within the current discussion it can be thought of as an emotional center. The orbitoprefrontal cortex is believed to use information from the amygdala and

PAGE 38

27 other sources to determine how a person should behave. If the emotional information received by the orbitoprefrontal cortex is positive, behavioral approach occurs. The processing and use of negative emotional information activates the behavioral inhibition system. This system involves inhibiting behaviors or withdrawing from situations. It includes comparator and motor processes (Nelson, 1994). According to Grays (1991) model of behavioral inhibition, the comparator process has two main functions. First, the subiculum (the part of the hippocampal system involved in memory) receives input from the entorhinal cortex, which receives input from all cortical sensory association areas as well as the amygdala. Second, the Papez circuit (a collection of septohippocampal structures that are involved in processing emotions) appears to facilitate decisions about future events. Motor circuits act on information from the comparator, and the prefrontal cortex feeds information back to the comparator system. Nelson (1994) has summarized information that supports the link between neural circuitry involved in behavioral inhibition and negative affect. Myers/Briggs Type Theory The development of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator 2 (MBTI) can be thought of as a mixture of remarkable foresight and keen observations of human behavior (Quenk, 2000). The MBTI was constructed based on the conclusion that Jung's theory of temperament and his temperament types to describe "healthy personality differences" or "gifts differing". Moreover, the MBTI expanded Jung's theory by adding a new temperament type, judging-perceiving (Myers & Mccaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley, Quenck, & Hammer, 1998). The judging-perceiving personality types differentiated the

PAGE 39

28 manner in which decisions are made. Persons with a judging temperament make decisions quickly while those with a perceiving temperament prefer postponing them. From its birth and publication in 1956, interest in the MBTI has grown. It now is used by more than two million people a year to determine normal personality functioning. From 1956 through 1974, the MBTI was popular among only a small number of researchers. However, in 1975, publication of the MBTI was transferred from Educational Testing Service to Consulting Psychologists Press. Movement of the MBTI to the Consulting Psychologist Press made it more accessible to professionals who had the credentials needed to purchase Level B instruments. Keirsian Theory According to David Keirsey (1998), environmental influences can not change a person's individual differences. He believes these differences are good and that much can be lost by ignoring or condemning them. To Keirsey, the important differences are innate and develop into a few distinctive patterns. A mature character arises when these traits have developed. Understanding these patterns helps us understand ourselves and others. Like many typologists, Keirsey posits four temperaments. His work is heavily influenced by the work of Myers and Briggs. After completing the MBTI, results helped him better understand himself and others and ultimately influenced his decision to immerse himself in the study of temperament. He also was influenced by reading Platos The Republic. Plato wrote of four kinds of character corresponding to the four temperaments attributed to Hippocrates. Unlike later typologists such as Jung or Myers, Plato was more concerned with understanding peoples roles in the social order than their 2 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.

PAGE 40

29 underlying temperaments. Plato wrote of the iconic (artist), pistic (caretaker), noetic (moralist), and dianoetic (logical investigator) characters. These characters correspond to Hippocrates temperament types sanguine, melancholic, choleric, and phlegmatic, respectively. Keirsey renamed the iconic character the artisan, the pistic character the guardian, the noetic character the idealist, and the dianoetic character the rational. Keirseys types correspond to Myerss SP, SJ, NF, and NT types, respectively. According to Keirsey, each temperament has two complementary types and one opposite type based on the use of communication and tools, as visually displayed in Figure 2-1. Thus, the four temperaments are derived from interweaving communication and tool use. Individual differences result from use of words and tools. Most people are concrete in word usage. People are about equally divided between being cooperative and utilitarian in tool usage. The attempt to define personality differences by word and tool use sets his view of temperament apart from Myers, which is based on Jungs internal psychological functions. Like Myers, Keirsey expanded the four types into sixteen subtypes. Keiseys subtypes are called role variants. The artisian role variants are the promoter (ESTP), crafter (ISTP), performer (ESFP), and composer (ISFP). The guardian role variants are the supervisor (ESTJ), inspector (ISTJ), provider (ESFJ), and protector (ISFJ). The idealist role variants are the teacher (ENFJ), counselor (INFJ), champion (ENFP), and healer (INFP). Finally, the rational role variants are the field marshal (ENTJ), the mastermind (INTJ), the inventor (ENTP), and the architect (INTP). Keisey contrasts the values, interests, self-images, and social roles of the four types. Keirsey also asserted that

PAGE 41

30 the four types differ in their possession of the relative quantity of four kinds of intelligence (i.e., tactical, logistical, diplomatic, and strategic). He notes that, in defining his four intelligence types, he is referring to his belief that the kind of intelligent roles displayed by people is determined by their temperament. He is not referring to the degree of skill at that role. In focusing on the practical social role aspect of temperament, Keirsey has done much to explore the implications of temperament in important social matters such as mating, parenting, working, and leading. Abstract Words Concrete Words Cooperative Tool Use Abstract NF Cooperator Concrete SJ Cooperator Utilitarian Tool Use Abstract NT Utilitarian Concrete SP Utilitarian Figure 2-1. Keirsian types and their derivation. Reprinted with permission from Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II: Temperament, character, intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis (p. 29). SSQ Theory The Student Styles Questionnaire (SSQ; Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996), like the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, was founded on the belief that individual differences need not be seen as pejorative, but rather can be used to optimize one's understanding of individual preferences and differences. The SSQ authors, like Myers and Briggs, felt that the knowledge of one's own differences was not sufficient. Instead, this knowledge once acquired should be made functional and used to provide a basis for introspection and self-awareness. Similar to the MBTI, the SSQ is based on Jungian theory. As previously stated, Jung created his typology for various reasons. One reason was to better equip

PAGE 42

31 psychologists with an understanding of themselves and others. Likewise, teachers equipped with a better understanding of their personal learning styles may be more apt to understand differences in their students and thus design curriculum and provide instruction that are meaningful for them. Moreover, a child involved with learning activities that are personally meaningful and in tune with his or her learning style will put forth more effort in the classroom and enjoy the learning experience. The SSQ, a downward extension of the Myers-Briggs, attempts to provide a link between children's temperament, their education, and other important life events and outcomes. According to SSQ theory, development is shaped by biology, environment, and personal choices or decisions. However, although an environment can be manipulated to optimize learning and children can be taught to make efficient and wise choices, teachers, parents, and others who work with children have little control over a child's biological makeup. Although children can be taught new positive behaviors, the biological makeup of the child impacts the degree he or she is capable of sustaining such an endeavor. The SSQ is based on normal variation and not pathology or weakness (Oakland et al., 1996). The SSQ can be administered by teachers and then used to help guide decisions regarding instruction and lesson planning. Unfortunately, much of the instruction in the past has placed students in passive learning roles, with the teacher teaching to a class and usually using the same teaching and instructional styles time and time again. However, with a new awareness of their students interests, teachers can create rich and meaningful lessons and form a classroom in which students are active and involved learners because their individual preferences are being respected.

PAGE 43

32 The SSQ was founded on the premise that differences in themselves are strengths and no learning style is superior to another. The impact of a person's temperament depends, in part, on how it enables the person to effectively coexist and interact with his or her environment. Thus, because environments differ and facilitate the display of certain temperament related traits, no temperament type is inherently superior to others. Students taking the SSQ can become aware of areas where they possess talent and aptitude. Knowledge of such can prove highly proactive not only in an educational setting, but also in a metacognitive and personal manner. The SSQ assesses four bipolar dimensions: extroverted-introverted, practical-imaginative, thinking-feeling, and organized-flexible. In line with SSQ theory, these eight temperament types are referred to as styles. When combined, they form sixteen possible style combinations that are representative of the students individual differences and preferences. Extroverted and introverted style preferences. Extroverted and introverted style preferences are related to the source from which a child receives his or her energy. According to Oakland and colleagues (1996), 65% of children prefer the extroverted style and 35% prefer the introverted style. The extroverted child receives his or her energy from others and seeks their company. The extroverted child feels uncomfortable when forced to spend too much time alone. In fact, most extroverted children are uncomfortable with silence. Children with an extroverted style preference tend to require much attention and communication with their families. They also need more encouragement and praise and thrive in an environment where these are provided. In addition, these children usually get

PAGE 44

33 to know others quickly just as others get to know them quickly. In school, extroverted children are inclined to join groups and enjoy interacting with their peers. They prefer hands-on activities and tend to perform best when long assignments are subdivided into components. They also prefer assignments that can be discharged orally as opposed to employing written expression. Because extroverted children require more interaction with others, they are more inclined to interrupt their classmates as they work or disrupt the general learning environment. In addition, they are inclined to act on impulse to respond quickly to a task and stop to analyze it after the fact. Finally, they are likely to say the first thing that comes to mind, whether it is a hurtful comment or a compliment. Children with an introverted style preference draw their energy from within and feel their energy is drained when they spend too much time with others. At home, these children need time to be alone, thus enabling them to derive energy from within, which in turn makes them happier. Although these children tend to enjoy spending time alone, they often have strong attachments to their friends and family. Because they derive energy from being alone, they may be misunderstood by their family, friends, and peers who feel they are too introverted and lacking in social skills. Others may feel that these children prefer to be alone and not participate in activities or family events. Children with an introverted style preference tend to think before speaking. They often are reserved and tend to be cautious in their actions. Because of their tendency to be hesitant, methodical, and less impulsive, their opinions often are well developed and thus respected. These students are more selective of those to whom they get close and to whom their feelings are revealed. In addition, they tend to be sensitive and caring friends because they are

PAGE 45

34 eager to listen to others and make decisions only after considerable thought and introspection. In school, these student are likely to thrive when their learning and behavioral styles are appreciated. For example, these children can work successfully with others in the classroom if they are placed with compatible peers in small groups or pairs. In addition, because these children seem to possess insight due to their reflective, methodical and logical reasoning, they need opportunities to express their thoughts. Expression can be achieved best by having them present their opinions after they have been given ample time to prepare or they have heard the presentations of others. Unfortunately, because of this trait, these children often get overlooked by teachers who can mistake their reserved nature as uncooperative, unfriendly, and less intelligent. Practical and imaginative style preferences. Within the school population, about 65% of children prefer a practical style. Students with a practical style are realistic. They attend less to abstractions and more to facts they can use. At home, these children enjoy spending time with their family members and are inclined to possess traditional attitudes towards family life. They find the company of grandparents especially pleasing. Unfortunately, because these students seem to have strong beliefs and to be drawn to facts, they may avoid peers who are different or possess more imaginative qualities. Within the classroom, these students enjoy learning sequentially through traditional instructional methods. Many educators who choose to teach in elementary, middle, and high school also have a preference for the practical style and thus exhibit a teaching style consistent with this preference. Students with a practical style preference generally enjoy working with others and are inclined to join groups of peers that share their interests.

PAGE 46

35 They prefer assignments for which there exists an obvious purpose. Abstract concepts are usually rejected by these children as they tend to prefer learning facts that are in turn used for a purpose. In addition, they tend to enjoy activities that are multi-sensory. These children may be uninterested in abstract concepts to the point of rejecting poetry and fictional literature. Finally, because students with a practical style prefer simplicity, they quickly lose interest when given tasks which are time consuming and involve many steps. About 35% of children prefer an imaginative style. These children tend to display creative instincts. They enjoy activities where new and original ideas are presented and learned through non-traditional means. Children with an imaginative style preference also value the quick acquisition of knowledge and therefore often leaps before truly analyzing the usefulness or applications of a new theory. Thus, children with an imaginative style are inclined to make factual errors. In addition, they become bored more easily and tend to dislike situations or tasks where there is little change. Finally, they tend to enjoy the abstract nature of language and easily interpret metaphors and other types of figurative language. In the social setting, these children tend to enjoy spending time with other children who share their creative qualities. These children gravitate to other imaginative children, in part, because they may feel rejected by their practical peers and are also inclined to be more accepting of children who are different. Within the family setting, these children generally have strong attachments to siblings and other family members. They may demonstrate their fondness in ways that are out of the ordinary. In the classroom, imaginative children seem to prefer working on projects or assignments in which they are able to use their imagination, learn new skills, and study theories. Unfortunately, because

PAGE 47

36 children with an imaginative style often are attracted to what is novel, they may reject important facts and accept new theories which may lack empirical support. These children also may be sophisticated planners who come up with projects that can become too difficult or elaborate for them to complete. Thinking and feeling style preferences. Thinking and feeling styles highlight the manner in which individuals make decisions. Unlike the other dimensions, the thinking and feeling styles vary by gender. Approximately 65% of males and 35% of females prefer the thinking style. In contrast, 65% of females and 35% of males have a preference for the feeling style. Children with a thinking style generally make decisions based on what they believe is fair and logical. They tend to feel little guilt when their decisions affect the feelings of individuals as long as that decision is one that was based on just and logical procedures. In addition, these children are inclined to make decisions only after taking sound and methodical steps to reach a fair conclusion. Children with a thinking preference tend not to express their feelings. Thus, they often are reserved and tend to avoid situations where emotions and inner feelings are exposed. Children who prefer a thinking style may choose to befriend others who have similar interests. They also prefer to form friendships that have purpose and depth as they are inclined to lose interest in impersonal small talk and gatherings. Disinterest with social talk that seems to have little purpose may limit their social interactions. These children also tend to have deep attachments to their families and tend to be sources of strength during times of need.

PAGE 48

37 In the classroom, students who prefer a thinking style often are competitive and tend to enjoy assignments in which logic is used. They also respond well to praise and recognition for their efforts when it comes in the form of visuals that display their achievements in comparison to that of their peers. Because these students tend to be analytical, they enjoy using computers and reference materials. Consistency generally is important to these students, and they often are skeptical of new information. Unfortunately, because of their tendency to be analytical and skeptical, at times they can be critical of themselves and others and hurt others' feelings while candidly expressing their opinions. Children with feeling style preferences tend to be diplomats who help to ensure that classrooms are places where everyone is entitled to harmony and respect. To children with this style preference, the feelings of others are valued over logic. Thus, children who prefer a feeling style may make decisions based on how the outcome will affect all parties involved. These students also are more likely to value what they feel strongly about over information that is supported by facts. They often are friendly and talkative, and can be charismatic. Children who have a preference for a feeling style tend to possess an innate tactfulness that enables them to understand others. In social settings, they tend to enjoy the company of others and are inclined to show empathy and support to friends. Friendship and harmony are a large of part of these children's lives and they tend to enjoy gathering with friends and getting to know them. However, because of their need for harmony, these students may become physically ill during times of conflict and stress in their lives or that of others. Within the family construct, these children tend to be

PAGE 49

38 expressive and affectionate with their siblings and other family members. They tend to feel a great need for belonging and look for such within family and friends. Within classrooms, these children generally enjoy working with others and respond well to collaborative group assignments. They tend to be interested in learning about the deeds of others and studying history and other subjects related to human nature that promote self-understanding. Unfortunately, these students at times may become too involved in the problems of others to the point of neglecting schoolwork. They also have a difficult time taking sides, thus appearing to be fickle in the eyes of others. Finally, these children at times may become upset to the point of making cutting remarks which can be insensitive to others. Organized and flexible style preferences. The organized/flexible dimension refers to the propensity to either make decisions promptly or delay them. Approximately equal numbers of children prefer organized and flexible styles. Children with organized styles generally thrive when they know what to expect. In social settings, students who prefer an organized style have an inclination to be selective about who they befriend, tend to be standard bearers, and may inform others when they find their behavior objectionable. They tend to prefer a traditional and orderly home environment. However, because of their inclination toward that which is orderly and predictable, they may become upset with family members who do not value this type of environment and disrupt the orderly balance. In classrooms, these children prefer instruction administered in a structured and orderly fashion. They also need to feel that they have some control over the course of their endeavors, including their employment decisions. In addition, they tend to be hard

PAGE 50

39 working, persistent, and finish what they begin. Their need for closure and drawing conclusions may suggest these students are anxious. They tend to put work before play. The desks of organized children tend to be orderly and neatly arranged. They may prefer working on assignments when expectations and grading rubrics are stated clearly. They may respond well to praise that acknowledges their organized and punctual nature. They prefer to have routines within the classroom as well as their personal space in which to organize their materials and belongings. Unfortunately, children with an organized style may be inclined to worry and may hesitate to learn new approaches to doing things. They also tend to be inflexible about their feelings towards issues and may reject those who they feel do not meet their standards. Children with a flexible style preference enjoy surprises. They generally assimilate easily into different situations and seem to seek experiences in which they have a chance to learn of new ideas and viewpoints. Thus, these children are open minded and tend to be accepting of others. They dislike schedules and prefer to do things at the spur of the moment. Rules tend to be confining. They are inclined to use their wit and charm as gateways that will facilitate the acquisition of new experiences. Socially, children with flexible style preferences often are fun to be around. They enjoy being with others and tend to be non-judgmental. They tend to feel comfortable in various types of social situations yet may feel uneasy during times of stress. Within their family, they tend to offer amusement. They generally have difficulty following externally imposed rules. Thus, their parents may worry about their carefree nature and lack of following rules. In classroom, they enjoy exploring new ideas and hands-on activities in which they can assemble, disassemble, build, or create objects. They also may prefer to

PAGE 51

40 respond to deadlines that are flexible. Unfortunately, children with flexible style preferences tend to be seen as insensitive by their classmates and may upset them with ill-timed surprises. They also have an inclination to put off assignments and responsibilities in light of other tasks. They also may not contribute equally to group projects or may keep their classmates from doing their work. Finally, they may disillusion others because of their tendency to not keep commitments. Trait Theory and Type Theory Relationships Scholars generally view trait theory as more empirically sound than type theory, perhaps because its tenets are easier to test with the common statistical procedures familiar to academic psychology (Newman, 1996b). Differences in the ease with which the two theories can be empirically examined result from differences in test format and statistical procedures. Interestingly, despite theoretical and test format differences, the traits measured by the five factor model are known to correlate with the MBTI types (McCrae & Costa, 1989; Johnson, 1995). The NEO-PI Extraversion scale correlated at the .7 level with MBTI Extraversion/Introversion dimension, the NEO-PI openness factor correlated at the .7 level with the MBTI sensing/intuitive dimension, the NEO-PI agreeableness factor correlated with the thinking/feeling dimension at the .45 level, and the NEO-PI conscientiousness factor correlated at the .47 level with the judging/perception dimension (McCrae and Costa, 1989). McCrae and Costa suggest that correlations at or above .7 suggest that the scales are essentially equivalent. Although correlations in the .40s are obviously not as strong, they reveal that 16 percent or more of the variance of the agreeableness and conscientiousness factors are in common with those on MBTI dimensions. Using a different type indicator derived from the same item pool used to

PAGE 52

41 create the MBTI, Johnson (1995) replicated the McCrae and Costa study and additionally found a comfort/discomfort dimension on the indicator he used correlated with the NEO-PI neuroticism factor. Despite these empirical relationships, important conceptual differences exist among temperament types and traits (Newman, 1996b; Quenck, 1993). These differences are summarized in Table 2-3. Table 2-3. Important conceptual differences between trait and type theories. Adapted with permission from Newman, J. (1996b). Trait theory, type theory and the biological basis of personality. In J. Newman (Ed.), Measures of the five factor model and psychological type: A major convergence of research and theory. (pp. 63-80). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type (p. 65). Trait Theories Type Theories Individual differences result from quantity of traits possessed Individual differences result from qualitatively distinct inborn preferences The prominence of a trait is determined by the amount possessed and is indicated by score magnitude The prominence of a type is determined by the interactions between the categories one is sorted into, score magnitude is used to determine the confidence placed in sorting procedures Normally distributed Distributions are bimodal and skewed Extreme scores are important for discrimination and may be considered undesirable or diagnostic Midpoint separating categories are used for discrimination, extreme scores are not important for discrimination and are not considered undesirable or diagnostic Teleological and causal Teleological Scores may lead to pejorative interpretations Focus on normal behavior, negative valences not assigned to behaviors First, trait theory purports that people differ in the quantity of a trait they possess while type theory purports that people have qualitatively distinct inborn preferences. Second, the prominence of a trait is determined by the amount possessed and is indicated by score magnitude. The prominence of a type is determined by the interactions between the categories into which one is sorted and the score magnitude used to determine the confidence placed in the sorting procedures. Third, the distribution of traits is normal

PAGE 53

42 while the distribution of types is bimodal and skewed. Fourth, in that trait theory involves measuring the quantity of the trait that a person possesses, extreme scores may be considered to indicate too much or too little of a trait and considered undesirable or diagnostic. Type theory uses midpoint-separating categories to make discriminations. Extreme scores are not used to make qualitative judgments are not considered diagnostic. Fifth, trait theory can be interpreted as either teleological or causal (i.e., behavior is caused by traits) while type theory is clearly teleological in that it assumes that type gives purpose to behavior that, in turn, is an expression of type. Finally, trait theory is generally considered to be more pejorative than type theory because type theory is concerned with discovering normal behavior rather than pathology. Consequently, negative valances are not assigned to type behaviors. Practical Uses of Temperament Concepts Temperament-based intervention approaches view people as active, selective responders who seek and initiate stimulation and thus play a large role in their own development (Bates, Wachs, & Emde, 1994). Moreover, people are viewed as agents whose social interactions affect how others respond to them. Recommendations based on temperament concepts seldom have empirical validation (Bates et al., 1994). Although such recommendations should remain general and tentative, well-considered applications can help people (Bates et al., 1994). Temperament approaches almost always involve reframing behavior patterns to enable people to see potential and positive qualities within all traits (Bates et al., 1994). The approaches include predicting possible conflicts to which these traits can lead, constructively dealing with challenging behavior, and learning to use effectively traits that were previously viewed as problematic. Such approaches have the potential to reduce

PAGE 54

43 blame, reduce the use of ineffective approaches to addressing problems, and promote trying novel actions that can resolve conflict between a child and his or her environment. Effective temperament-based interventions can accomplish important goals. These include increasing skills and knowledge, the quality of social interactions, self-esteem, empathy, and caregiver satisfaction. They also include decreasing caregiver distress and behavior problems. In contrast to such approaches as applied behavior analysis that focus on specific target behaviors that are operationalized so that changes in target behavior can be readily measured, temperament-based interventions must succeed by hitting a largely unspecified target (Bates et al., 1994). As such, measurement of their efficacy is more difficult. Temperament and adjustment appear to have an empirical relation (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Certain temperament qualities may predispose children to maladjustment. Temperament information may be useful when formulating diagnoses and treatment planning (Garrison & Earls, 1997). Customized, anticipatory guidance of possible conflicts between children and their environment and how to handle challenging behavior may help prevent psychopathology. For example, children with an extroverted style, face to face counseling appears to be more effective than written guidance. Written guidance may be ineffective and sensitize parents to problems (Cameron et al, 1989, 1991). Strategic family therapists (Fisch et al., 1981; Haley, 1988) suggest that temperament-based approaches can change social systems from a problem focus to one of flexible control that is more accepting of individual differences. Temperament matching can be achieved by examining the congruence of a child's temperament with significant others in his environment (e.g., parents; Garrison & Earls,

PAGE 55

44 1987). Based on the outcomes of parent guidance interventions, Thomas and Chess (1977) concluded that parental response to temperament of their children tends to be based on congruence with parental goals, standards, and values rather than congruence with temperament. Thus, when developing interventions, comparisons of parents' impressions of their child and their expectations or views of what is considered normal are likely to be more useful than comparisons of child and caregiver temperaments. Lerners et al. (1982) Dimensions of Temperament Survey enables parents to make such distinctions. Education Temperament influences school performance. For example, temperament appears to influence how children approach, engage, and persist with tasks; their classroom behavior; and how teachers respond to them (Keogh, 2003). Interactions among teachers and students are more likely to be positive when teachers interpret childrens behavior as temperament-related styles rather than deliberate choices (Keogh, 2003). Oakland, Glutting, and Horton (1996) presented descriptions of the eight basic temperament styles measured by the SSQ as well as four Keirseian combinations and sixteen style combinations. They recommend curriculum and instructional methods that are likely to best suit specific temperaments and temperament combinations. The intent is to improve student outcomes by capitalizing on strengths and minimizing the consequences of weaknesses. These recommendations offer practical guidance based on intuitive relationships among temperament styles and classroom practices. Some recommendations based on the eight basic temperament styles are detailed in the following paragraphs to illustrate the application of temperament concepts to educational settings.

PAGE 56

45 Children with different learning styles prefer to learn through different types of activities and settings. Children with an extroverted style preference enjoy activities where they are able to express their thoughts and opinions. They thrive when teachers offer constant affirmations and praise. Collaborative learning and peer approaches constitute group practices they enjoy. Children with an extroverted style preference may become bored with activities that limit their chance to interact with peers and share their personal views and ideas. On the other hand, children with an introverted style tend to prefer to work alone or with one other student. They enjoy activities that require thoughtful planning and metacognitive processes. In other words, these children generally enjoy conducting research on a topic of interest yet resist engaging in activities that require immediate decisions. They thrive in learning environments where they are given a chance to be introspective and analytical. Although these children prefer to work alone, they also can be valuable members in small peer collaborative groups that share their commitments to work. Children with a practical style preference are likely to shy away from novel situations and innovation. They like to learn information that seems useful to them. They tend to prefer sequential hands-on learning and review of previously learned skills. They are likely to attend closely to detail and make fewer factual errors. Moreover, they are likely to work hard to meet tangible and practical goals. In contrast, children with an imaginative style preference tend to thrive in situations in which they are presented with novel and innovative information. These children tend to be creative, gravitate towards peers and educators who are different, and seek

PAGE 57

46 knowledge for its own sake. For them, knowledge does not need to have a practical function. They generally enjoy learning new information if it adds to or expands existing views. Children who prefer a thinking style often communicate briefly and succinctly. They are more likely to be businesslike in their interactions. They prefer competition and tasks that involve the application of logic. They often prefer subjects such as math and science and generally will thrive under learning conditions that embrace methodical thought processes. Similarly, students with thinking preferences also enjoy tasks in which they are asked to analyze and apply information. Most university professors display a thinking style. In contrast, students who prefer a feeling style are sympathetic and sensitive to others feelings and thus they are likely to promote harmony and play the role of classroom diplomat. They thrive in positive and cooperative learning environments. They generally enjoy activities that deal with the moral aspects of humanity as well as those that allow them to express their opinions and feelings. Finally, they enjoy working with friends and receiving and providing praise. They often do not respond well to activities that involve competition. Children who prefer an organized style tend to prefer structured learning environments and tasks. They generally work hard and are reliable. They often enjoy surpassing teachers expectations and show interest when tasks are factual and objective. They may have difficulty with tasks that have unclear boundaries or expectations or seem to serve no immediate practical purpose.

PAGE 58

47 In contrast, children with a flexible style tend to prefer unstructured learning environments and tasks. They generally benefit from high mobility, task variety, exploration, flexible deadlines, and open-ended assignments. Children with a flexible style are likely to experience school difficulties. Notably, there has been little empirical investigation of the efficacy of temperament-based curriculum and instructional methods. The research that has been completed indicates that matching temperament type to teaching style does little to improve achievement. Horton and Oakland (1997) found that matching Keirseian temperament combinations to teaching style did not significantly improve students achievement. Rather, teaching strategies designed to encourage intuitive and feeling qualities such as cooperation, personal application, and identification with the material resulted in significantly higher achievement regardless of temperament. Vocations Vocational choices appear to be related to temperament types (Keirsey, 1998; Macdaid, McCaulley, & Kainz, 1986; Oakland, Stafford, Horton, & Glutting, 1996). In addition to vocational preferences, temperament has also been linked to vocationally relevant characteristics such as leadership style and responses to leadership styles (Keirsey, 1998). The MBTI has a long history of use in guiding adult vocational decisions. Thus, the MBTI is used frequently to improve social interactions and ultimately promote efficiency and productivity. Typologists at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type in Gainesville Florida gather data, conduct research, develop empirically-grounded strategies to use MBTI information for the preceding purposes, and offer workshops in the United States and abroad to help promote this information.

PAGE 59

48 The SSQ also can be used to help children and youth identify temperament-related interests that influence vocational interests and choices (Oakland et al, 1996; Oakland et al., 2002). Children think about vocational choices at an early age (i.e., at least at age 8), and their choices are related to temperament type. Strong and uniform relationships between temperament and some vocations can be identified. Notably, the vocational interests of people with flexible styles may be limited. Thus, they may need help to find work that excites them or that they can turn into play (Keirsey, 1998; Oakland et al., 1996, Oakland et al., 2002). Although temperament information can be useful in career planning, it is erroneous to assume all persons with a type of temperament will be happy or successful in the same type of vocation. Individuals with similar temperaments may have divergent interests and talents that are, in turn, influenced by dynamic traits. Moreover, temperaments can be channeled, and opportunities and incentives provided by the social environment can produce adaptations in dynamic personality variables (McCrae et al., 2000) that ultimately can influence job satisfaction. Considerations in the Generalizability of Temperamental Constructs Developmental Considerations The temperaments of young children, especially infants, have been found to be fairly unstable over relatively short intervals of time (Lemery, Goldsmith, Klinnert, & Mrazek, 1999). However, infant temperament has been found to be a modest predictor of adult traits (Wachs, 1994). Self-regulation or control and emotional reactivity have been found to be two of the most important constructs when predicting later behavior (Diener, 2000). As a general principle, individual differences become increasingly stable with age until at least age 30 (McCrae et al., 2000). The functioning of genes is dynamic and

PAGE 60

49 contributes to individual patterns of aging. Therefore, individual differences and traits are not entirely stable. Moreover, even when traits are relatively stable, their expression can change based on contextual factors (McCrae et al, 2000). McCrae and colleagues (2000) found strong conceptual links among the big five factors and childhood temperaments. They suggest that the same endogenous traits underlie child and adult behavior. In contrast to the proposed similarity of trait types across the life span, they identified age changes in the mean level of traits. For example, between ages 18 to 30 they found neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience decrease while agreeableness and conscientiousness increase. These authors could not extend their research into childhood, as it would require a change in instrumentation from the NEO Five Factor Inventory. However, the SSQ has been used to study childhood traits. Although the NEO is a measure of the five factor model and the SSQ measures Psychological Type, the two approaches show convergence both empirically and conceptually. As such, there should be conceptual links among the developmental trends found with the two measures. Thayer (1996) identified some developmental trends in the SSQ data. First, she found that the preference for extraversion tends to increase from age eight to the early teen years and begins to level off at age thirteen. Second, younger children generally prefer organized styles and older children generally prefer a flexible style. Third, children develop a stronger preference for feeling styles as they enter their late teen years. No important age trends were found for the practical-imaginative dimension. More recently, Bassett (2004) found that children develop a stronger preference for an imaginative style

PAGE 61

50 between ages 8 and 10, their preferences become more balanced between ages 10 and 15, then a stronger preference for an imaginative style develops again between ages 15 and 17. Gender Considerations Although some scholars (Kohnstamm, 1989) believe differences in temperament dimensions are uncommon and the origins and conceptual implications of gender differences are difficult to determine (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1978; Carlson, 2001), gender differences that have been reported. Compared to females, males exhibit higher sensory threshold, less adaptability, less predictability, and less persistence. In addition, males are more likely to be have negative mood and display more difficult temperament patterns. Using the SSQ temperament dimensions, Thayer (1996) found that boys and girls differ most distinctly on the thinking-feeling dimension. Seventy-two percent of females were found to prefer feeling styles while sixty-four percent of males preferred thinking styles. In addition, boys were found to be somewhat more inclined to both practical styles and flexible styles. Based on MBTI data, Hammer and Mitchell (1996) report adult males and females differ on the thinking-feeling dimension. Sixty-one percent of females prefer feeling styles while sixty-nine percent of males prefer thinking styles. Males also were more likely to prefer extroverted, intuitive, and flexible styles. Cultural Considerations Attempts to define a broad concept such as culture are difficult. Kluckhohn (1954) proposed that Culture is to society what memory is to individuals." The concept of culture refers to the transmission of shared elements such as norms, values, unstated assumptions, standard operating procedures, and tools (Triandis & Suh, 2002). During

PAGE 62

51 the last few decades, research methodologies for cross-cultural research have been improved (Marsella & Leong, 1995). Two approaches to address cultural issues have been conceptualized by psychologists conducting cross-national and cross-cultural research: the emic perspective and the etic perspective. The emic perspective emphasizes understanding cultural differences from the viewpoint of those being studied (Marsella & Leong, 1995). Researchers from this perspective attempt to discover indigenous personality constructs prior to adapting constructs from other cultures. In contrast, etic strategies involve the importation and adaptation of constructs into new cultures (Church & Lonner, 1998). Some proponents of cross-cultural psychology suggest that psychological constructs commonly used in Western psychology have limited applicability in non-Western cultures. For example, Hsu (1985) argued that personality might have limited applicability to non-Western cultures. Others, such as Schweder and Bourne (1984) argue that the very definitions of person and personhood vary across cultures. Many conclusions about human behavior have been made by Anglos based on their studies of Anglos (Marsella & Leong, 1995). According to these authors, two major errors challenge the validity of many of these studies: the errors of omission and commission. Errors of omission occur when generalizations about human behavior are made without conducting cross-cultural comparisons. Errors of commission occur when researchers include participants from multiple cultures in their research yet conceptualize and conduct research without regard to the points of view of participants from different cultures (e.g., use nonequivalent instruments and assessment methods across cultural groups).

PAGE 63

52 Cross-cultural psychologists have proposed several cultural dimensions to explain the behaviors of cultural populations. Triandis and Suh (2002) identify ecology as an important link to cultural dimensions. Ecological features include isolating landforms (e.g., water and mountains, climate, and the mobility of resources). Dimensions of culture related to ecology include complexity, tightness, collectivism, and individualism. Complexity refers to the degree of complexity needed to maintain the functioning of a culture. For example, modern information societies rate high on this dimension because maintenance is very complex while societies that are sustained by hunting and gathering rate low on this dimension because maintenance is less complex. Tightness refers to the degree deviation from normative standards are tolerated by persons within a society. Tolerance is more common when population density is low (i.e., there is less opportunity for surveillance) and when people are not highly inter-dependent. Other commonly cited cultural dimensions include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-femininity. Power distance refers to the extent people accept and expect social hierarchy. Some people may expect and tolerate large inequalities in the distribution of power between individuals, while others accept a smaller power distance. This dimension can be expressed by one's propensity to protest or revolt against establishments that create inequalities. Uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent people find novelty and ambiguity threatening and act to avoid such uncertainty. Uncertainty often is avoided through establishing rules and procedures. Masculinity-femininity refers to the extent people value "masculine" objectives (e.g., money and status) versus "feminine" objectives (e.g., caring for others and quality of life).

PAGE 64

53 Individualism-collectivism is the most frequently researched and cited cultural dimension. Individualism-collectivism refers to the extent that people generalize their sense of responsibility. Individualists think in terms of I, where "I" also includes people emotionally close to the individual. Individualists are viewed as inclined to provide for themselves and their immediate family. Collectivists think in terms of we, and are inclined to feel responsible for the larger collectivity. Studies of individualism-collectivism have implications for trait psychology (Church & Lonner, 1998). At the individual level, individualism-collectivism is referred to as idiocentricism-allocentricism. Differences between idiocentrics and allocentrics include views of self as autonomous or connected, whether group or individual goals are prioritized, and the impact of personal attributes or roles and norms on behavior. Church (2000) proposed that temperament traits exist in all cultures, but are more influential on behavior in individualistic societies than in collective societies. He believes situational determinants are more important in collectivist societies. Fijneman et al. (1996) challenged the belief that individualism-collectivism is a broad value dimension that has a high level of generality. They examined people's expectations to give and seek support and found, contrary to expectations based on individualism-collectivist assumptions, that expectations were similar for people who favored individualist and collectivist orientations. Therefore, they caution against readily accepting broad cultural concepts such as individualism-collectivism to explain behaviors displayed by all people in a culture. Such broad concepts are loosely defined and do not control for confounding variables. Such concepts often are popular for a while and tend to fade in importance with time. Although such concepts can display face validity, their

PAGE 65

54 variability within cultural groups can be substantial. Broad concepts rise in response to a perceived lack of attention to between-culture differences and may fall partially due to the fact that these concepts ignore within-culture differences (e.g, sub-cultures, social status). Thus, cultural differences observed at the country level often have limited predictive value at the individual level (Van de Vijver & Poortinga, 2002). The probability of making errors is rather large when disaggregating psychological variables from the level of a country to an individual. Piker (1998) has critiqued the conceptual formulations of cultural psychology as disappointing. Cultural psychology proposes that each culture is unique, focuses on the interaction between individuals and culture, and proposes that psychological mechanisms must be studied in situ. Piker notes that cultural psychology either has ignored or denied the inquiry into universal psychological mechanisms. Nevertheless, cultural psychologists have produced important empirical research in personality and behavior. For example, cultural differences have been found in experience and expression of emotions (Aune & Aune, 1996). The difficult temperament constellation proposed by Thomas and Chess (1977) has been found to be culture dependent (deVries, 1984). deVries examined the survival rates of an African tribe during a severe drought and found that infants with difficult temperaments had a much higher survival rates. He concluded that, although easy temperaments are considered more desirable in industrialized Western culture, a tribe of warriors that values aggressive and assertive behaviors may find the difficult temperament more desirable. Nevertheless, such research suggests that the functional value of temperaments and other psychological

PAGE 66

55 concepts should be interpreted, in part, within a cultural context (Super & Harkeness, 1986). Empirical evidence suggests that some psychological traits are universal. Eysenck (1991) presented evidence that supported the universality of his three superfactors. Similarly, five factor model proponents have proposed that the big five traits transcend differences in language and culture (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae et al., 2000). However, some researchers have argued the existence of factors indigenous to specific cultures. For example, Cheung (1996) has argued that a Chinese "tradition" factor exists and Church, Katigbak, & Reyes (1998) have argued that a "temperamentalness" factor exists in the Filipino culture. McCrae and colleagues (2000) suggest that these factors may be social attitudes rather than traits. Further research that promotes better understanding of these factors is warranted as their existence challenges the universality of the big five. Moreover, some differences in factors across culture and age-by-culture mean differences in factors have been identified. The widespread international use of the MBTI provides extensive and compelling evidence that Jungs theory of personality type is indeed universal (McCCaulley & Moody, 2001, p. 301). However, mean differences in temperaments have been identified cross-nationally using type indicators such as the MBTI and the SSQ (Williams, William, Qisheng, and Xuemei, 1992; Broer & McCarley, 1999; Carlson, 2001; Bassett, 2001; Oakland; 2002). For example, Chinese college students from both mainland China and the Peoples Republic of China were found to have a higher preference for thinking styles

PAGE 67

56 than U.S. students (Williams, William, Qisheng, and Xuemei, 1992; Broer & McCarley, 1999). Oakland (2002) compared temperament preferences of children in five countries: Australia, Costa Rica, Greece, People's Republic of China, and the United States. Although all children preferred extroversion, Greek and Costa Rican children exhibited considerably higher preferences while Australian children exhibited discernibly lower preferences for this style. Although children from all five countries preferred thinking styles, the preference for this style was higher in children from Australia and lower in those from the United States. Chinese children preferred practical styles while children from the other countries preferred imaginative styles. Although children from all five countries preferred organized styles, those from Costa Rica exhibited higher preferences and those from Australia lower preferences for this style. According to Oakland, although cross-cultural differences in the magnitude of preferences can be identified, the children from the five countries are more similar than different. Within the United States, the temperament styles of African American, Hispanic, and White children were compared (Stafford, 1994; Stafford & Oakland, 1996). African Americans and Hispanics were found to be more practical and organized than Whites, with African Americans exhibiting higher preference for thinking than Whites. Despite these differences in mean levels of the types, the structure of the SSQ has been found to be consistent across different cultural groups within the United States (Stafford, 1994; Stafford & Oakland, 1996). Thus, similar to the cultural differences found in the big five research, cultural differences in psychological types have been found in mean levels of the types, yet the

PAGE 68

57 types themselves seem to remain stable cross-culturally. However, attempts to employ statistical methods (i.e., using factor analytic or confirmatory factor analytic studies) to examine the structure of type indicators cross-nationally have not yet been reported. Measurement The measurement of temperament may occur in the context of psychological assessment. Psychological assessment refers to the intensive study of an individual or individuals during which information from multiple sources such as observations, interviews, case history, and test scores are integrated (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Information gathered during evaluations is used to make informed decisions on practical matters. Temperament traits have been found to affect behavior in a various settings. Thus, temperament measures provide information that can substantially improve the utility of psychological assessments. Information relevant to developing, using, and interpreting temperament measures is detailed in the following sections. Psychological Tests Psychological tests refer to standardized measures used to sample and evaluate specified behavioral domains (American Educational Research Association et al., 1999). Psychological tests can provide information about functioning in a variety of psychological, social, and educational areas. Psychological test uses include facilitating research, describing behavior, identifying talent, certifying attainment of knowledge and other abilities and skills, improving educational and vocational selection, diagnosing disorders, and monitoring change (Oakland, 2004). An infinite number of observations exists for most behavioral domains. Tests are designed to measure a small, carefully selected sample of an individual's behavior (American Educational Research Association et al., 1999). Temperament consists of

PAGE 69

58 traits that are not directly observable. Rather, temperament traits are latent, inferred from interrelated sets of observations. Inferred characteristics such as temperament historically have been referred to as psychological constructs. Due to confusion and debate about the nature of constructs, the definition of the word construct has been expanded to include the particular concepts or characteristics a test is designed to measure (American Educational Research Association et al., 1999). Measurement error results from influence on test scores by factors that are not representative of the construct. Error can be both random and systematic (Crocker & Algina, 1986). Random error is derived from purely chance happenings. Random error attenuates both the consistency and accuracy of results. Systematic error is derived from irrelevant characteristics of the test or the person who completed the test. Although systemic error does not affect consistency, it does affect accuracy and therefore the utility of results. Because the measurement process is subject to error, responsible test users must make integrated, evaluative judgments about the validity of inferences based on error estimates. Validity Validity is the most fundamental consideration in developing and evaluating tests (American Educational Research Association et al., 1999). The concept refers to the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific inferences made from test scores (Messick, 1989). Validity is a unified though multi-faceted concept (Cronbach, 1990). Six facets of construct validity have been identified as important in elucidating the central issues in test validity: content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential (Messick, 1989).

PAGE 70

59 Content validity refers to the relevance and representativeness of test content. Substantive validity refers to relationships between observed consistencies in test responses and theoretical rationales. Structural validity refers to the fit between the test's scoring structure and the structure of its construct. Generalizability validity involves the identification of sources of error. The extent to which scores and interpretations can be generalized across populations, settings, and tasks is examined and the bounds of test interpretation are established. External validity includes a multitrait-multimethod examination of convergent and discriminant evidence (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) as well as criterion relevance and applied utility (Cronbach & Gleser, 1965). Consequential validity involves the value implications of score interpretation and the actual and potential consequences of test use. Its primary measurement concern is possible adverse consequences that arise from sources of invalidity or test misuse (Messick, 1989). Decisions about what types of validity evidence are important can be clarified by "...developing a set of propositions that support the proposed interpretation for the particular purpose of testing" (p. 9; American Educational Research Association et al., 1999). After these propositions have been articulated, research must be done to empirically evaluate their soundness. This can be facilitated by examining plausible alternative hypotheses for test interpretation (American Educational Research Association et al., 1999). These hypotheses should address concerns that have been conceived at both a measurement and theory level. Test Adaptation A need for assessment tools that can be used with persons from various cultural and ethnic groups increases to the extent societies are culturally diverse. Children from a variety of language, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds attend public schools. Assessment

PAGE 71

60 tools normed on a narrow range of students do not meet the needs of this diverse population. Additionally, increase in the globalization of economic markets, work force mobility, and the cultural heterogeneity of societies contribute to a need for tests that are valid in multiple cultures and languages (Tanzer, 2004). Tests that are adapted, as opposed to those that are translated, may facilitate their use cross-culturally, cross-nationally, and cross-lingually. Their use saves time and money that otherwise would be devoted to preparing new tests. Until recently, test adaptation and the process of establishing score equivalence across cultures have received little attention (Hambleton, 2003). The transportation of measurement issues across countries, cultures, and languages often has been fraught with faulty practices (Merenda, 2004). Notable errors that have occurred during transportation include the literal translation of items rather their adaptation, failing to re-standardize administration and scoring procedures, using original norms, and failing to exam and confirm the structure of the measurement instrument. In response to such faulty practices, the International Test Commission (ITC) established guidelines for adapting tests across countries, cultures, and languages. The ITC guidelines stress the importance of specifying and justifying valid comparisons between test scores obtained in different languages or cultural groups. Some important issues gleaned from these guidelines and other relevant sources are described below. Adaptation approaches. The development and implementation of tests for multicultural/multicultural markets generally use one of two methods: simultaneous and successive. The simultaneous test development approach, a newly developed and largely untested approach, calls for tests to be developed simultaneously for use in multiple

PAGE 72

61 languages and cultures. This approach emphasizes the formation of a committee composed of persons from various members from predetermined target groups with which the test will be used. This committee is regarded as an important source of knowledge about the unique needs as well as the linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies of the target cultures in which the test will be used (Tanzer, 2004). The successive approach, a far more common practice, involves the development of a test that is validated by several test developers. Once the test has been used successfully for a long period of time, it then is adapted for use in other cultures and/or languages. During the adaptation phase, the original test developer (or a new team who possess skills in psychology, test construction, and psychometrics) reviews the original (i.e., source) test in order to determine the best way to adapt it for the target culture and/or languages. Translation. The process of translation refers to rendering a test from one language to another. Tests can be translated closely from the source language to the target language. Once the test is translated, the items within the test can be changed to enhance the suitability of the test to varying cultural contexts. Additionally, if the test being adapted is inappropriate in the new culture, a new test can be assembled using a new item pool (van de Vijver, Mylonas, Pavlopouloas, & Georgas, 2003). Test developers typically use one of two methods to translate tests from the source language to the target language: forward translation and back translation. Using a forward translation method, a translator or group of translators adapt the test from the source language to the target language. Equivalence of the two tests then is assessed by a different group of translators. At times, individuals from the target culture also take the

PAGE 73

62 test. Data from this study may lead to other modifications that could further improve the test. Although the forward translation method can be effective, it has some drawbacks. At times translators may possess more skill in one language than another and test equivalence is not always judged by individuals with sufficient linguistic, cultural, and psychometric competence. However, the most significant weakness of this method is that the language and other abilities of the bilingual translators may not be equivalent to that of those taking the test. Thus, incorrect assumptions may be made about the skills of the target population who will be taking the test. The back translation method is best known and most widely used (Hambleton, 2003). Back-translation translators adapt the test from the source language to the target language. The adapted test, which then is in the target language, then is reviewed by a second set of translators and translated back to the source language. Both versions of the source language measure then are compared for equivalence. The back translation method also has some drawbacks. For example, confusion may occur because comparisons between the source and target versions of the test are done in the source language. In addition, tests that are back-translated and then compared at first may seem to share equivalence; however, upon closer inspection, the grammatical structure and spelling of the source test may have been translated incorrectly to the target language. Therefore, because back translations are done using source language participants, terms that may seem grammatically correct in the source language may have little meaning in the target language.

PAGE 74

63 Many errors can be prevented when persons translating tests are qualified professionals (Hambleton & Patsula, 1999). The belief that knowing two languages makes a person a candidate for being an acceptable translator is a myth. In fact, their use can create significant problems in translations. Thus, translators should be fluent in both languages, knowledgeable of source and target cultures, and knowledgeable of the constructs being studied. For example, a translator who is knowledgeable of English or Spanish and has no knowledge of the construct being assessed will not understand the context in which vocabulary and language will be applied. Words may be translated correctly without capturing their unique meaning within the context of the construct. Analogously, it would be similar to translating the steps to an equation without knowledge of algebra. Differential item functioning during test adaptation. Differential item functioning assesses whether test takers who have the same total test score have different average item scores or different rates of choosing item options (American Educational Research Association et al., 1999). During test adaptation, differential item functioning can be used to examine for possible item bias. Differential item functioning may help identify terms, expressions, or circumstances that are known to the source population but unknown to the target population. Item bias can occur for many reasons, including item bias due to poor and vague translations and cultural specific items that may have low familiarity in some cultures and high familiarity in others (Tanzer, 2004). Stafford and Oakland (1996) used differential item functioning to examine the SSQ items for possible bias. These authors examined the responses of three racial-ethnic groups (i.e., African, Anglo, and Hispanic) within the United States. The results indicated

PAGE 75

64 that these racial-ethnic groups used similar response patterns for most items. For the African and Hispanic groups, differential item functioning occurred on only three percent of the items. Differential item functioning occurred on seven percent of the items when the responses of Anglo and Hispanic groups were examined. When the African and Anglo groups were compared, differential item functioning occurred on twenty-five percent of the items, and more than half of those that did are on the Organized-Flexible dimension. Sampling guidelines. Test developers must be careful in their selection of participants on whom data are collected for use in validity studies. Some recommend selecting participants who share similar background characteristics with target populations (Van De Vijver and Leung, 1996). Such practices reduce error variance due to mistaking sample-specific differences for population differences. Differences in sample characteristics (e.g., motivation) are known to affect responses (Hambleton, 2003). Differences in traditions, norms, values, and how cultures draw meaning from the world may exist within two or more cultural/language groups. Such differences could affect the examinee's views of the assessment tool and performance. Researchers conducting studies across cultures work to ensure the construct being measured by a test is applicable to the target population. An existing equivalent construct in the target group must be present. Certain ideas, expressions, and concepts may exist in the source culture that do not exist in the target culture/cultures. Plausible examples include the indigenous Chinese tradition (Cheung, 1996) and Filipino temperamentalness (Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1998) factors proposed by researchers involved in the cross-national study of

PAGE 76

65 personality. Moreover, differing socio-political factors in certain cultural/language groups can affect examinees scores and should be considered (Hambleton, 2003). Test format. Responses differ due to the nature of a test's format (Hambleton, 2003). A test format that is both familiar to the target and source populations should be used. Unfamiliarity with test format can be reduced by using detailed, unambiguous instructions that include examples and exercises (van de Vijver & Poortina, 1992). Test administration. Test administrators are responsible for following established protocols of test administration and maintaining an atmosphere that is conducive to test performance (Glutting, Youngstrom, Oakland, & Marley, 1996). Problems arising from test administrations can be lessened by providing test directions that leave little room for confusion. Test directions should be visual, self-explanatory, and minimize verbal communication (van de Vijver & Poortinga, 1991). Rating scales usually used to measure attitudes seem to cause special problems in test administration (Hambelton, 2000). Test administrators should come from communities being tested, be knowledgeable about their culture, including language and dialects, possess test administration skills, and follow standardized procedures. To this end they should know how test administration can affect validity and reliability of tests, avoid vague communication, and not deviate from test instructions. Construct equivalence. Construct equivalence should be established when adapting or developing tests for cross-national use. That is, the concept the test is designed to measure should be equivalent or nearly equivalent across different groups (Hambleton, 2003). Construct equivalence subsumes measurement equivalence and theoretical equivalence.

PAGE 77

66 Measurement equivalence refers to the equality of factorial structure across groups. Thus, a test should measure the same number of factors across groups, and patterns of factor loadings should be similar. Moreover, factor loading estimates and measurement error estimates should be similar. Theoretical equivalence refers to the equality of the theoretical structure. That is, a test should have the same pattern of factor covariance, no significant differences in factor covariance estimates, and no significant differences in factor variance estimates. Purpose of the Study Interest in developing tests that can be used internationally has flourished in recent years. As such, attempts to establish the construct equivalence of tests cross-nationally are important. Research investigating the structure of type indicators cross-nationally using factor analytic or confirmatory factor analytic studies has yet to be published. Moreover, evidence of attempts to establish the cross-national construct equivalence of either traits or types for children could not be located. The purpose of this study is to examine the construct equivalence of a measure of childrens temperaments cross-nationally. This research examines whether the SSQ, as used in 8 countries, has etic (cultural-universal) qualities. In other words, does the SSQ measure the same temperament qualities when used with children in various cultures. If the evidence suggests that the SSQ measures the same temperament qualities across countries, children's temperaments, as measured by the SSQ, may assess attributes that transcend cultures. If the evidence suggests otherwise, SSQ interpretations for children outside the United States should be guided in light of differences in the constructs underlying temperament preferences.

PAGE 78

67 Research Questions Our study addressed the following three questions: Specific aim 1. Does the SSQ measure the same four bipolar dimensions among children from Australia, China, Costa Rica, Gaza, Nigeria, the Philippines, the United States, and Zimbabwe? Specific aim 2. If not, what is the structure of the SSQ in these countries? Specific aim 3. Are the intercorrelations of the dimensions similar across countries?

PAGE 79

CHAPTER 3 METHODS Participants Participants were 11,784 children from Australia, China, Costa Rica, Gaza, Nigeria, the Philippines, the United States, and Zimbabwe. All of the students attend public school. Data samples from some of the countries were excluded from certain data analyses if they are found to be insufficient in size or quality. Australian sample. The Australian sample included 369 students (55% female), ranging in age from 9 through 15 (25% in each of the following ages: 9, 11, 13, and 15). They attend public primary and secondary school in the provincial city of Bendigo, in the state of Victoria, Australia. Students were drawn from a cross-section of socio-economic backgrounds. Chinese sample. The Chinese sample included 400 students (50 % female), ranging in age from 9 through 15 (25% in each of the following ages: 9, 11, 13, and 15), attending public schools in Taiyuan, the provincial capital of Shanxi (the largest city in China). Students were drawn from a cross-section of socio-economic backgrounds. Costa Rican sample. The Costa Rican sample included 432 students (51% female), ranging in age from 9 through 15 (25% in each of the following ages: 9, 11, 13, and 15) attending both public and private schools. Most participants attend schools that serve middle class families. Gaza sample. The Gaza sample included 395 students (55% female), ranging in age from 9 through 16 (11% age 9, 14% age 10, 10% age 11, 14% age 12, 11% age 13, 68

PAGE 80

69 15% age 14, 10% age 15, and 14% age 16) attending public school in Gaza City. Students were drawn from a cross-section of socio-economic backgrounds. Nigerian sample. The Nigerian sample consists of 400 students (50% female) ranging in age from 9 through 15 (25% in each of the following age groups: 9, 11, 13, and 15), attending school. Students were drawn from a cross-section of socio-economic backgrounds. Philippines sample. The Philippine sample consists of 400 students (50% female) ranging in age from 9 through 15 (25% in each of the following age groups: 9, 11, 13, and 15), attending school. Students were drawn from a cross-section of socio-economic backgrounds. United States sample. The United States participants included 7,902 students (50 % female), ranging in age from 8 through 17 (7% age 8, 8% age 9, 12% age 10, 15% age 11, 14% age 12, 15% age 13, 12% age 14, 8% age 15, 5% age 16, 4% age 17).The data were obtained during the standardization of the SSQ using a stratified design representative of the 1990 U.S. Bureau of the Census data. Zimbabwean sample. The Zimbabwean sample included 492 students (54.5% female), ranging in age from 8 through 14 (25% ages 8 and 9, 25% age10, 23% age 11, 14% age 12, 12% ages 13 and 14), attending school. Students were drawn from a cross-section of socio-economic backgrounds. Instrumentation The Student Styles Questionnaire (SSQ; Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996) is a 69-item self-report temperament scale. The SSQ utilizes a two-option per item, forced-choice response format. Items have a third grade readability level in English. It was designed to be used with children ages 8 through 17.

PAGE 81

70 The SSQ consists of four empirically-derived primary dimensions. These dimensions are measured on bipolar scales, and their theoretical structure is based on Jungian typology theory: extroversion-introversion, practical-imaginative, thinking-feeling, organized-flexible. These dimensions yield eight styles that in turn yield 16 possible combinations of four preferred styles based on the Myers-Briggs model. The SSQ scores appear to be fairly stable over time, with test-retest reliabilities ranging from .67 to .80. An average test-retest reliability coefficient of .74 was obtained over a 9 month period, using a Fisher's z transformation applied to coefficients from the four scales. The use of dichotomous data restricts variance at the item level and precludes a true estimate of internal consistency. Measures of internal consistency coefficients generally over-estimate a tests reliability when used with dichotomous data and thus were not used. Factor analytic data show that the internal structure of the test is stable and consistent with the theoretical framework of the instrument for persons who differ by age, gender, and race/ethnicity (Oakland, Glutting, and Stafford, 1996; Stafford & Oakland, 1996). Convergent validity studies reveal that MBTI dimensions correlate well with three of the four SSQ scales for a group of 12 to 17 year-old students. In particular, a joint canonical correlation analysis revealed strong correlations between the extroverted-introverted, thinking-feeling, and practical-imaginative scales from the SSQ and MBTI. The aforementioned relationships are reported as canonical loadings, and range in magnitude from .84 to .96. Canonical loadings equal to or greater than an absolute value of .80 are considered substantial (Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996).

PAGE 82

71 Divergent validity studies indicate that the SSQ constructs are distinct from academic achievement and intelligence. Many of these correlations are less than .1. None of these correlations exceed .3. The suitability of the SSQ for use with students in Australia, Costa Rica, Gaza, Nigeria, The People's Republic of China, the Philippines, and Zimbabwe was reviewed in light of guidelines established for the translation of tests by the International Test Commission (Hambleton, 2003). For example, issues pertaining to the suitability of item content, format and response style were reviewed by Dr. Oakland's collaborators in each of these countries. Upon review, the following collaborators determined that the SSQ was suitable for use with students in Australia, Costa Rica, Gaza, Nigeria, The People's Republic of China, the Philippines, and Zimbabwe, respectively: Dr. Michael Faulkner, professor and Head of Department, Institute for Education, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia; Ana Lorena Mata who served as a school psychologists in Los Angeles for almost 20 years prior to her return to her native Costa Rica; Dr. Mohammad Adnan Alghorani, Assistant Professor of Psychology, The University of Oman; Dr. Andrew Mogaji, professor of psychology, University of Lagos, Nigeria; Dr. Lu Li, a professor at the Shanzi Medical University, Shanxi Taiyuan, People's Republic of China; Carmelo Callueng, professor of education at the Philippines National University, Manila, Philippines; and Dr. Elias Mpofu, professor of rehabilitation psychology at Pennsylvania State University. All five are fluent in English. Procedure The SSQ is an English language test. The language used in this test was found to be suitable for use in Australia, Nigeria, The Philippines, and Zimbabwe. However,

PAGE 83

72 translations were needed prior to its use in Costa Rica, Gaza, and the People's Republic of China. The SSQ was adapted using back-translation sequential methods in these three countries. The SSQ in English (i.e., SSQ-E1) was translated into Spanish (i.e., SSQ-S) for use in Costa Rica by Ana Lorena Mata, into Arabic (i.e., SSQ-A) by Dr. Algohorgani for use in Gaza, and into Cantonese (i.e., SSQ-C) for use in the People's Republic of China by Dr. Lu Li. Colleagues fluent in both English and their native language translated the SSQ-S, SSQ-A, and SSQ-C back into English (SSQ-E2). SSQ-E1 and SSQ-E2 were compared to determine their equivalence. Adjustments in language were made in SSQ-S, SSQ-A, and SSQ-C as needed. The SSQ was administered to groups of students in their schools. The students were asked to read and mark items appropriately, consistent with the test's directions. Students used either an answer form or marked the items directly on the test booklet. Psychologists were available to offer assistance and answer questions. Data Analysis Procedures Raw scores were used for data analyses. Raw scores are more appropriate than normalized scores in this type of research because the distribution of raw scores on the extroverted-introverted, practical-imaginative, thinking-feeling, and organized-flexible dimensions may not be normal. Moreover, normalized and weighted scores would distort the actual score distribution. The SSQ uses dichotomous items. Data analysis of dichotomously-scored items is considerably more complicated than data from items that are continuously scored (e.g., a Likert scale). The Jungian theoretical structure of the test requires a force-choice format. Jungian theory holds that people may be defensive about their preferences and thus may report their true preferences inaccurately if a Likert type system is used. The forced

PAGE 84

73 choice format is thought to be less susceptible to this type of response bias. A response format that uses a broader scale may sacrifice important clinical information pertaining to preferences in favor of providing more suitable empirical data for examination of construct validity. Unfortunately, when using dichotomous variables, attempts to compute Pearson correlation coefficients for all relationships may not be possible due to restricted variance. Item parceling can be used when working with dichotomous data (Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996). Item parceling involves combining items into groups, thus producing larger variances. However, item parceling procedures have disadvantages. First, as parcels must be chosen, these procedures are more subjective than analyzing individual items. In addition, an examination of the factor loadings of individual items is not possible using this approach. The test authors (Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996, page 183-184) indicate that an approach involving the repeated factoring of parcels, opening a different parcel during each successive factoring, can be used to avoid problems associated with both the factoring of individual dichotomous items and the factoring of item parcels. In addition, tetrachoric correlations can be computed when using dichotomous data. These correlations are computed using a formula for binary data. Binary data may violate the distributional assumptions of the maximum likelihood method. However, the use of tetrachoric correlations allows for the retention of binary data because observed covariances were corrected prior to being analyzed in a CFA. In contrast to item parceling, this approach eliminates the need for a priori grouping of items.

PAGE 85

74 Several methods exist for engaging in the analysis of test structure across countries: factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis, and covariance structure analysis (van de Vijver & Leung, 1996). Each is described below. Factor Analysis Factor analysis involves the examination of covariation among observed variables in order to identify the most robust unobservable (latent) factors that contribute to test performance (Byrne, 1998). The technique also involves examining and interpreting how and to what extent the observed variables are related to the latent factors. The extent of such relationships is represented by factor loadings. When more than one latent variable is identified, hierarchical analyses of these latent variables can be performed to determine whether a higher-order latent factor exists. An exploratory factor analytic approach is used when no prior knowledge exists as to whether the observable variables actually measure the intended latent construct (Byrne, 1998). A strategy for applying factor analysis in cross-cultural and cross-national analyses of test structure is discussed by van de Vijver and Leung (1996). This strategy also can be applied to cross-national analyses of test structure. First, they recommend determining if the same number of factors is evident within different countries, with factors selected based on amount of variance each factor explains. In reference to the SSQ, the underlying dimensions are bipolar. Thus, a two stage factor-analytic process is required to differentiate the components of the dimensions. The dimensions of the test are thought to be essentially independent. When factors are thought to be independent, principal axes factor analysis using varimax rotations has been recommended in order to rotate the structure orthogonally (Merenda, 1997).

PAGE 86

75 Second, if the same number of factors is found in the different groups being compared, then test items are examined to determine if the items correlate with the same underlying factors in each group. Third, the equality of the factor loadings can be determined by using a procedure that begins with target rotations. This procedure involves arbitrarily choosing one set of factor loadings as a target and rotating the axes of the other factor loading matrices so that agreement between the sets is optimized. Then, the similarity of the loadings is evaluated during sequential comparisons through a coefficient of agreement (e.g., Tucker's coefficient of agreement; Tucker, 1951). The powerfulness of this approach is questionable (van de Vijver and Leung, 1996). In addition, the influence of nonequivalent items is not reflected in the coefficient of agreement. Multidimensional Scaling and Cluster Analysis Multidimensional scaling (MDS) or cluster analysis can be used to compare the structure of cross-cultural and cross-national data sets. MDS refers to a class of techniques used to uncover the underlying structure of data (Kruskal & Wish, 1978). MDS procedures use proximities as input. Proximities refer to quantitative values assigned to datum that collectively indicate similarities and differences in the data. In reference to the SSQ, proximities could be derived from either intercorrelations of or squared distances between items. The output of MDS procedures consists of spatial representations that display the geometric configurations of data points along dimensions. Researchers can vary the number of dimensions in the output, thus allowing them to identify the most interpretable and theoretically parsimonious structure. A goodness-of-fit (or more aptly, a badness-of-fit) measure known as stress is used to determine the number of dimensions needed to best describe the structure. Stress is defined as the

PAGE 87

76 square root of a normalized residual sum of squares. The larger the stress values, the poorer the fit. As with factor analysis, a rotation problem occurs when attempting to compare the results from different countries. The same approach used during factor analytic procedures (i.e., performing a target rotation and using an index of agreement) can be used to examine similarity of the solutions (van de Vijver and Leung, 1996). However, there are no known published examples of research in which target rotations have been applied during the cross-cultural analysis of structure. Cluster analysis refers to a set of multivariate statistical procedures used to form homogenous clusters of data points derived from similarities within data sets (Aldenderfer & Bashfield, 1984). In reference to the present study, clusters obtained during analyses would represent temperament dimensions or other factors that might be measured by the SSQ. Although possibly suitable for cross-cultural and cross-national research, cluster analysis rarely has been implemented with these forms of data. Covariance Structure Analysis Techniques The data could be submitted to covariance structure analysis techniques in order to examine cross-national differences in test structure. These techniques attempt to explain relationships among a larger set of observed variables in terms of a smaller number of unobserved variables. Relationships among the observed variables are characterized by covariances that are contained in a covariance matrix (Long, 1983b). The theory behind this approach typically holds that the unobserved variables are causal processes assumed to produce the pattern of relationships (i.e., structure) among multiple observed variables (Byrne, 1998). The causal processes are represented by a series of regression equations. This multivariate technique allows for the simultaneous

PAGE 88

77 testing of many variables, thus allowing complex structural models to be hypothesized and tested statistically in order to determine the extent of their consistency with the data. Various goodness-of-fit measures are used (Byrne, 1998). Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; Joreskog, 1969), the structure of the SSQ can be specified a priori and either confirmed or rejected in favor of competing models based on empirical findings. Data Analysis Procedures used for the Present Study In the present study, the extent to which the SSQ measures the four primary dimensions based on Jungian typology theory was examined. The structural equation modeling (SEM) technique of CFA is commonly used and often preferred by contemporary researchers who conduct empirical tests of hypotheses about tests with latent structures (Keith, 1997), and therefore was selected as the most appropriate method for the present research purposes. Tetrachoric correlation matrixes and covariance matrixes were analyzed using AMOS 5.0 (Arbuckle, 2003) computer software following the method of maximum likelihood, which assumes a multivariate normal distribution. CFA was used to examine the SSQ structure for each country separately and in simultaneous multi-country comparisons. CFA allows for the empirical testing of theories and hypotheses, which researchers accomplish by setting substantively motivated constraints (Long, 1983a). The following constraints were imposed: Intercorrelations of latent factors Specifying which observed variables are affected by which latent factors Constraining the error variances of observed variables to zero when necessary due to identification problems The four bipolar dimension model, as well as plausible competing models (i.e., a model with three bipolar dimensions and a hierarchical model) were tested for each

PAGE 89

78 country. These alternative models were chosen based on empirical and theoretical rationales. A model with three bipolar dimensions was chosen to test the hypothesis that the data better conform to a simpler, more parsimonious model. Had this hypothesis been accepted, a two bipolar dimension would have been examined. A five dimension model also could have been examined. If, for example, the SSQ contained items that appeared to be feasible measures of neuroticism, a neuroticism factor could have been added. However, this was not done because a rationale for assigning SSQ items into a fifth bipolar dimension was not identified. A hierarchical model was chosen to test the hypothesis that the data better conform to a model containing a second-order factor in addition to four bipolar dimensions. Model fit for individual countries was evaluated using fit indexes that indicate how a specified model of interest compares with an independence model in which all observed variables are uncorrelated. Fit indexes are used to decide whether the null hypothesis of a close fit of the model to the data should be rejected. They may be interpreted more aptly as poorness of fit indices because they do not confirm models, only disconfirm them. There are dozens of fit indexes described in the SEM literature. Because these indexes reflect different facets of model fit, multiple indexes are presented. The fit indices used to evaluate individual models evaluated included the following: Chi-square test Ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) Comparative Fit Indices (CFI) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) The chi-square test has degrees of freedom equal to the difference between the number of observations and the number of parameters. This statistic is interpreted as the

PAGE 90

79 difference between the model specified by the researcher and a just-identified version of it. Small and nonsignificant values are desired. However, the chi-square test typically is not used as a significance test because, when sample sizes are large, the statistic may be significant even though differences between the observed and model-implied covariances are small. The ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom provides a measure of fit that is less sensitive to sample size. Although there is no definitive value used to establish acceptability, a ratio of less than 3 is frequently suggested (Kline, 1998). The GFI is considered to be more standardized and less sensitive to sample size than the chi-square. The GFI is interpreted as the proportion of observed covariance explained by the model-implied covariance. The CFI is an index with an analogous rationale, it indicates the proportion in the improvement of fit of the model specified by the researcher relative to an independence model (i.e., the observed variables are assumed to be uncorrelated). Although the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) is similar to the CFI, it includes a correction for model complexity. Acceptable fit for the GFI, CFI, and TLI indexes is considered to be indicated by values exceeding .90 (Kline, 1998). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is a standardized summary of the average covariance residuals. Covariance residuals are the difference between the observed and model-implied covariances. The smaller the value, the better the fit. Values less than .05 generally are considered indicative of acceptable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Fit indexes show only the average fit of a model. Some parts may fit well while other parts may fit poorly. Standardized regression weights were examined in order to examine the model more closely and to better understand its theoretical meaningfulness.

PAGE 91

80 When comparing competing models or making multi-group comparisons, fit indices useful for making such comparisons are emphasized. For example, the change in chi-squared, along with degrees of freedom and associated probability, were used to make such comparisons. The Akaike Information Criterion also was used. This criterion compares models that may not necessarily be nested. Lower criterion values indicate better fit. In addition, the GFI, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA were examined. Moreover, invariance in factor loadings, factor correlations, (i.e., factor structure), and measurement residuals (i.e., error in the prediction of latent factors) were tested in multi-country comparisons. Notably, the SSQ utilizes item weights to evaluate the strength of children's preferences. That is, some items are weighted more heavily than others in the scoring system. Item weighting was derived empirically by analyzing the standardization sample. Such weights are subject to capitalization on chance variation within the particular sample. The present study is concerned with internal structure of the SSQ across samples from a variety of countries. Therefore, item weights were not considered in the CFA models tested.

PAGE 92

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Five sets of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were needed to test the hypotheses in this research. The first set involved testing the structure of the SSQ using a first-order CFA model with the sixty-nine items loading on four bipolar temperaments, as specified in Appendix B of the SSQ manual. This appendix delineates item scales and weights. The model tested is shown in Figure 4-1. A statistical solution could not be calculated for most countries because many items did not have sufficient variance. Restricted item variance poses a statistical problem commonly encountered when using binary data. Due to this problem, a second set of analyses was carried out. The second set involved testing the validity of a first-order CFA model of item parcels the test authors derived from factor analytic and heuristic considerations. More specifically, a factor analysis of correlations among dichotomous item scores provided factor loadings, and items were combined into fourto five-item parcels based on the similarity of these loadings. This model is shown in Figure 4-2. Some estimates of parcel variance were found to be unreasonably large. This problem was addressed by constraining variance parameters to zero as needed. However, the unreasonably large estimates raise questions about the correctness of the model. Merely constraining problematic parameters does not address these issues fully. Therefore, a third set of CFA was needed. 81

PAGE 93

82 i7 i13 i16 i4 i1 i54 i10 IE OL i30 i2 i5 i8 i14 i17 i22 i26 i20 i23 i33 i27 i36 i42 i49 i52 i57 i35 i38 i40 i44 i47 i53 i62 i56 i65 i58 i67 i59 i24 i63 i32 i66 i69 TF i61 i55 i50 i43 i37 i28 i18 i12 i29 i41 PM i64 i51 i48 i45 i34 i31 i25 i21 i15 i11 i9 i6 i3 i68 i19 i46 i39 i60 1 1 1 1 Figure 4-1. Sixty-nine item Student Styles Questionnaire model.

PAGE 94

83 EI PM OL ei1 pm1 pm2 ol1 ol2 ei31 TF tf2 tf1 1 err err err err err err err err1 1 1 1 1 ei2 ei4 ei5 1 err err err1 1 err err err err pm3 pm4 err err1 1 1 1 1 ol3 ol4 ol5 ol6 1 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 4-2. Parcel model. The third set of CFA involved testing the validity of a first-order CFA model of modified item parcels. The modifications were guided by the assumption that model fit was reduced by unspecified relationships between certain items. The modification process is described in greater detail later along with the results obtained from using this set of CFA. The model is shown in Figure 4-3.

PAGE 95

84 EI social intro err err assert restraint openness err err err1 1 1 1 1 1 TF sensitivity passion err err1 1 1 OF discipline flexibility org con err err err err1 1 creativity liberalism ingenuity1 1 1 err err err1 1 1 PM 1 Figure 4-3. Modified model. Fourth, a three bipolar temperament model (Figure 4-4) was examined. Fifth, a hierarchical CFA model (Figure 4-5) was examined. The fourth and fifth sets of CFA were completed to examine plausible rival hypotheses that either a three-factor model or a hierarchical model best represents the data. An examination of competing hypotheses is an integral part of strong programs of construct validation (Keith & Kranzler, 1999). When possible during each of the five sets of CFA, analyses involved examining model fit for individual countries as well as multi-group comparisons. The rationale that guided the progression of these five sets of analyses is shown in Figure 4-6.

PAGE 96

85 The first data analysis approach attempted was to conduct a first-order CFA of the 69 SSQ items and their proposed four-factor relationship. Specifically, this approach tests the hypothesis that childrens temperament is a multidimensional construct composed of the four SSQ bipolar styles. The model (Figure 4-1) specified relationships between individual items and the four bipolar styles based on the listing of items and their related scales in Appendix B of the SSQ manual (Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996). In order to enhance the visual clarity of this figure, item error parameters are not represented. However, these parameters were included in CFA analyses. The latent content variables (i.e., the bipolar styles) were allowed to correlate. Factor loadings and measurement errors were set free to vary for most observed variables. In that unobserved variables have no definite metric scale, some parameters had to be fixed to satisfy this scaling requisite. Specifically, one factor loading in each set of factor loadings thought to measure the same latent variable was constrained to 1.0. Likewise, in that error is an unobserved variable and therefore has no definite metric scale, the regression weights associated with error were constrained to 1.0 for each item. SSQ item responses were used as input, and matrixes of tetrachoric correlations were computed using a formula for binary data. The obtained matrixes of tetrachoric correlations were used as input for CFA analysis. The model specified is overindentified. This means the ability to calculate a unique estimate of every parameter is theoretically possible. However, overidentification is a necessary but insufficient condition to resolve the identification problem (Byrne, 2001).

PAGE 97

86 EI social intro err err assert restraint openness err err err1 1 1 1 1 1 sensitivity passion err err1 1 OL discipline flexibility org con err err err err1 1 creativity liberalism ingenuity1 1 1 err err err1 1 1 PM 1 Figure 4-4. Three-factor model The model in Figure 4-1 was tested empirically for the United States sample only. The resulting fit indices suggest that the model provides inadequate fit to the US data. Modification indexes indicate that model fit could be greatly improved by allowing some measurement error terms to correlate. However, allowing measurement error terms to

PAGE 98

87 correlate without substantive reason would result in a theoretically meaningless model that does not answer any questions related to this study. EI social intro err err assert restraint openness err err err1 1 1 1 1 TF sensitivity passion err err1 1 1 OF discipline flexibility org con err err err err creativity liberalism ingenuity1 1 err err err1 1 1 PM 1 I1 E Ri Re1 1 1 civic Rc1 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 4-5. Hierarchical model. A matrix is nonpositive definite when it contains an out-of-bounds correlation, resulting in the failure of certain mathematical operations with the matrix (Kline, 1998). The use of tetrachoric correlations and multicollinearity (i.e., highly correlated items) are known causes of nonpositive definiteness. Inspection of correlation matrixes revealed a few out-of-bounds correlations. Thus, nonpositive definiteness of sample correlation matrixes prohibited the evaluation of this CFA model with data from other countries. Also, many correlations were found to be

PAGE 99

88 close to zero. An attempt to identify specific problematic items that may have contributed to this problem was unsuccessful. Likewise, examination of data from multiple countries suggests that out-of-bounds correlations obtained when correlating specific item pairs tend to be specific to that country. The use of item parcels in subsequent analyses eliminated both the need for tetrachoric correlations and multicollinearity. In summary, the first set of analyses provided little useful information for answering the research questions proposed in this study. The parcels used in the second set of analyses were obtained using factor analytic and heuristic methods. A review of the SSQ test manual lead to the belief that factor loadings obtained from exploratory factor analyses and content validity were primary considerations used to assign items into parcels. Some test items were placed into multiple parcels and used to measure two different bipolar temperament dimensions. These parcels, as delineated in the SSQ manual, are presented in Appendix A. The model is shown in Figure 4-2. This model specified factor loadings between the four bipolar styles and the parcels purported to measure them. The latent content variables (i.e., the bipolar styles) were allowed to correlate. With the exception of reference variables, factor loadings were set free to vary. Measurement errors were set free to vary, while the regression weights associated with these terms were constrained to 1.0. The fit indexes for the eight countries in this study are detailed in Table 4-1. Standardized regression weights and correlations between the bipolar styles are presented in Appendix B. Notably, certain error parameters were not identified in some samples.

PAGE 100

89 1st Set The sixty-nine item Student Styles Questionnaire model provides inadequate fit to the US data and could not be used to evaluate data from other countries. 2nd Set The parcel model provides good fit for all countries except Gaza. Multi-group comparison indicates reasonably good fit; however, the chi-square difference between the unconstrained model and a model with factor loadings constrained to be equal across groups is statistically significant and indicative of noninvariance. Also, a number of estimates of parcel variance had to be constrained due to their magnitude. 3rd Set Post hoc re-specification of item parcels was undertaken so that fewer constraints (i.e, estimates of parcel variance) had to be relaxed. The development of this modified model, that was guided by modification indexes and consideration of item content, allows for better examination of construct relevant variance (i.e., the degree to which scores measure processes that are relevant to the constructs of interest and not to irrelevant constructs or measurement error). This model provides good fit for all countries; however, the variance of measurement error terms for discipline and creativity parcels had to be constrained to zero in order to achieve identification for the Zimbabwe sample. In addition, for the Australian sample, the correlation between EI and OF and the correlation between EI and PM had to be constrained to zero to achieve identification. Simultaneous examination indicates reasonably good fit; however, the chi-square difference between the unconstrained model and a model with factor loadings constrained to be equal across groups is statistically significant and indicative of noninvariance. 4th and 5th Sets The three-factor and hierarchical models were examined to test plausible rival hypotheses. The three-factor model was identified for only three countries (i.e., Australia, China, and Costa Rica) and provides a less adequate fit than competing models. The hierarchical model provides the best fit for Australia, China, Gaza, Nigeria, and USA data. Figure 4-6. Rationale for analyses. This problem was addressed by constraining these variances to zero. The measurement error for parcel tf1 was constrained to zero for Australia. The measurement

PAGE 101

90 errors for parcel tf1 and ei5 were constrained to zero for Gaza. The measurement errors for parcels ei3 and pm1 were constrained to zero for Nigeria and the Philippines. Fit indexes suggest that the model provides a poor fit for the Gaza data. These indexes provide mixed support of model fit for other countries. For all countries except the United States and Gaza, the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom is indicative of adequate model fit. The chi-square value for the United States sample appears to be strongly influenced by sample size. The fit indexes less sensitive to sample size are more in line with those obtained for the other countries. The GFI index suggests adequate fit for all countries except Gaza. The RMSEA index indicates reasonable fit for all countries except Gaza. In contrast, the CFI and TLI indexes are indicative of questionable fit and suggest that at least some part of the model is misspecified. Table 4-1. Comparison of fit for the parcel model. Country X 2 df X 2 / df GFI CFI TLI RMSEA Australia 270.89 114 2.38 .92 .65 .58 .06 China 334.90 113 2.96 .91 .65 .58 .07 Costa Rica 261.33 113 2.31 .93 .78 .73 .06 Gaza 537.667 115 4.68 .86 .42 .31 .10 Nigeria 305.672 115 2.66 .92 .45 .35 .06 Philippines 239.12 115 2.08 .94 .64 .57 .05 USA 3267.72 113 28.92 .95 .62 .55 .06 Zimbabwe 284.24 113 2.52 .94 .57 .46 .06 Results for the multi-country analysis are presented in Table 4-2. Factor loadings, structural covariances, and most measurement residuals were constrained to be equal. Measurement errors for pm1 and tf1 were constrained to zero. The results are mixed. The GFI and RMSEA indexes suggest adequate model fit. In contrast, the difference in chi-square between the unconstrained model and a model with factor loadings constrained to

PAGE 102

91 be equal across groups is statistically significant and indicative of noninvariance (i.e., the structure varies across groups). Moreover, AIC, CFI, and TLI indexes suggest noninvariance. Thus, the results suggest that some of the equality constraints do not hold across countries. Table 4-2. Fit of the parcel model, multi-country analysis. Model X 2 df X 2 / df AIC GFI CFI TLI RMSEA Unconstrained 6052 920 6.58 6660 .94 .57 .49 .02 Measurement Weights 6808 1011 6.73 7234 .93 .51 .48 .02 Structural Covariances 7124 1081 6.60 7410 .93 .49 .49 .02 Measurement Residuals 7624 1186 6.43 7700 .92 .46 .50 .02 The covariance structure analysis model considers interscale correlations to derive from scale loadings on correlated factors (Long, 1983b). An examination of the magnitude of parcel factor loading shows some variance across countries. This is not surprising in that these parcels were formed, in part, on item factor loadings obtained using exploratory factor analysis. This analysis has the statistical danger of producing patterns of item loadings that are largely due to sampling error (Agresti & Finley, 1997). An examination of the modification indexes showed that modifying the model to allow measurement errors to correlate would significantly improve model fit. In other words, the parcels share variance not accounted for by the four bipolar dimensions. Although the content (i.e., item) similarity of the parcels is obvious, finding meaningful distinctions between them is difficult without an understanding of the meaning of the parcels. Allowing for correlated measurement errors makes the model meaningless.

PAGE 103

92 For example, correlated measurement errors could signify the existence of unobserved, exogenous variables not specified in the model. Moreover, if the measurement error terms of parcels believed to measure the same construct are correlated, their relationship could derive entirely from measurement error. The results of any confirmatory factor analysis depend on the variables that are entered. Some SSQ items appear to be more similar in content to certain items that have been specified as measuring the same temperament than to other items specified as measuring the same temperament. In other words, groups of items appear to measure qualities that underlie temperaments. Post hoc specification of these qualities was undertaken in an attempt to examine construct relevant variance (i.e., the degree to which scores measure processes that are relevant to the constructs of interest and not to irrelevant constructs or measurement error) more closely. Although specifying these qualities does not change how SSQ items covary with the intended structure of the theoretical domain, such specification allows for the improvement of overall model fit and more interpretable results. Notably, the combination of items into parcels that allow for greater improvement in fit and theoretically meaningful results may be possible. The approach used to form this particular combination involved first examining modification indexes for the model in Figure 4-1. Specifically, modification indexes for allowing item pairs to correlate were examined. Many large and statistically significant modification indexes were found. Next, content of items from pairs with large modification indexes was subjectively examined to identify similarities. These

PAGE 104

93 similarities were specified in a modified model as qualities that underlie the bipolar temperaments. The item content of the specified qualities is shown in Appendix C. The modified model is shown in the Figure 4-3. The fit indexes for the eight countries in this study are detailed in Table 4-3. The standardized regression weights, latent factor correlations, and fit indices for the respective countries are presented in Appendix D. Table 4-3. Comparison of fit for the modified model. Country X 2 df X 2 / df GFI CFI TLI RMSEA Australia 187.65 73 2.57 .94 .49 .36 .07 China 204.72 71 2.88 .93 .53 .40 .07 Costa Rica 99.62 71 1.40 .97 .81 .75 .03 Gaza 168.88 71 2.38 .94 .56 .43 .06 Nigeria 110.91 71 1.56 .96 .61 .49 .04 Philippines 94.33 71 1.33 .97 .79 .73 .03 USA 1157.44 71 16.30 .98 .62 .51 .04 Zimbabwe 120.00 73 1.64 .97 .50 .38 .04 Notably, for the Zimbabwe sample, the variance of the measurement error terms for discipline and creativity had to be constrained to zero in order to achieve identification. In addition, for the Australian sample, the correlation between EI and OF and the correlation between EI and PM had to be constrained to zero to achieve identification. As with the last set of analyses, the chi-square value for the United States was found to be greatly influenced by the large sample sizes. The ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom, the GFI index, and the RMSEA generally support adequate model fit for all countries. In contrast, the CFI and TLI indexes are indicative of questionable fit. Results for the multi-country analysis are presented in Table 4-4. Factor loadings, structural covariances, and measurement residuals were constrained to be equal.

PAGE 105

94 Zimbabwe was excluded from analyses because of concerns about the quality of the data related to the inflated variance of the measurement error terms for the discipline and creativity parcels. Table 4-4. Fit of the modified model, multicountry analysis. Model X 2 df X 2 / df AIC GFI CFI TLI RMSEA Unconstrained 2685 667 4.03 2821 .96 .49 .51 .02 Measurement Weights 3029 677 4.48 3145 .96 .40 .44 .02 Structural Covariances 2960 687 4.31 3056 .96 .42 .46 .02 Measurement Residuals 3087 701 4.40 3155 .96 .39 .45 .02 The obtained results are mixed. The GFI and RMSEA indexes suggest adequate model fit. In contrast, the difference in chi-square value between the unconstrained model and a model with factor loadings constrained to be equal across groups is statistically significant and indicative of between country differences. Likewise, this chi-square difference is indicative of noninvariance with latent factor intercorrelations and measurement residuals. Moreover, AIC, CFI, and TLI indexes suggest noninvariance. Thus, the results suggest that at least some of the equality constraints do not hold across countries. Model trimming and building were used to develop some alternative models. A three-factor model is presented in Figure 4-4. The thinking-feeling dimension is excluded from this model because it is measured by fewer items than the other dimensions and, as indicated by previous factor analyses presented in the manual, its eigenvalue was found to be small compared to some other dimensions.

PAGE 106

95 A hierarchical model is presented in Figure 4-5. This model specifies latent introversion and extroversion variables that underlie the high-order extroversion-introversion dimension. This model also specifies what appears to be a latent variable that underlies the organized-flexible dimension. Notably, the existence of these latent variables is compatible with the four bipolar dimensions interpretation. The existence of underlying variables does not diminish the importance of higher-order variables, in this case the four bipolar dimensions. A three-factor model was identified for only three countries. The fit indexes for this model are presented in Table 4-5. The hierarchical model was identified for five countries. The fit indexes for this model are presented in Table 4-6. The three-factor, hierarchical, parcel and modified models were compared (Table 4-7). The results show that the hierarchical model to be best for Australia, China, Gaza, Nigeria, and the USA. The modified model provides the best fit for Costa Rica, the Philippines, and Zimbabwe. The results provide support for the four bipolar temperament interpretation of the SSQ. Table 4-5. Fit for identified three-factor models. Country 2 df 2 / df GFI CFI TLI RMSEA AIC Australia 159.03 74 2.12 .94 .62 .53 .06 221.03 China 260.65 74 3.52 .91 .34 .19 .08 322.65 Costa Rica 101.08 74 1.37 .97 .82 .78 .03 163.08

PAGE 107

96 Table 4-6. Fit for identified hierarchical models. Country 2 df 2 / df GFI CFI TLI RMSEA AIC Australia 90.30 65 1.39 .97 .89 .84 .03 170.26 China 144.81 65 2.23 .95 .72 .61 .06 224.81 Gaza 109.63 65 1.69 .96 .80 .72 .04 189.63 Nigeria 83.05 65 1.28 .97 .82 .75 .03 163.05 USA 525.55 65 8.09 .99 .83 .77 .03 605.55 Table 4-7. Comparison of competing models. Country 2 df Drop in 2 Change in df AIC Australia 1. Modified 187.65 73 251.65 2. Three-factor 159.03 74 28.62 +1 221.03 3. Hierarchical 90.30 65 97.35 -8 170.26 China 1. Parcel 334.90 113 414.90 2. Three-factor 260.65 74 74.25 -39 322.65 3. Modified 204.72 71 130.18 -42 272.72 Costa Rica 1. Parcel 261.33 113 341.33 2. Three-factor 101.08 74 160.25 -39 163.08 3. Modified 99.64 71 161.69 -42 167.62 Gaza 1. Modified 168.88 71 236.88 2. Hierarchical 109.63 65 59.25 -6 189.63 Nigeria 1. Modified 110.91 71 178.91 2. Hierarchical 83.05 65 27.86 -6 163.05 United States 1. Parcel 3267.72 113 3347.72 2. Modified 1157.44 71 2110.28 -42 1125.44 3. Hierarchical 525.55 65 2742.17 -48 605.55

PAGE 108

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine the construct equivalence of the Student Styles Questionnaire (SSQ) cross-nationally. The following three questions were addressed: Specific aim 1. Does the SSQ measure the same four bipolar dimensions among children from Australia, China, Costa Rica, Gaza, Nigeria, the Philippines, the United States, and Zimbabwe? Specific aim 2. If not, what is the structure of the SSQ in these countries? Specific aim 3. Are the intercorrelations of the dimensions similar across countries? Five sets of analyses were needed to address the questions described above. The rationale used to guide these analyses are described in Figure 7. The results of this study clearly support the conclusion that the SSQ measures the same four bipolar dimensions or styles among children from Australia, China, Costa Rica, Gaza, Nigeria, the Philippines, The United States, and Zimbabwe. Notably, the parcel model did not provide good fit for the data provided by children from Gaza. This finding may reflect difficulties with translation, as the Arabic language used by these children uses a different alphabet and language structure. This finding also may relate to religious and cultural beliefs, as these are the only group of Muslim children who participated in the study. Moreover, the data were obtained during Intafada, a five year period of conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. Trauma related to Intafada may have influenced the responses of these children. 97

PAGE 109

98 In addition, the measurement error terms for the discipline and creativity parcels were found to be inflated when testing the modified model with data provided by children from Zimbabwe. This finding may have occurred because the children from this country have been subjected to more poverty than the children from the other countries in this study. Moreover, although these children receive instruction in English, their first language is a local language. This may have hindered their comprehension of test items. Some of the underlying qualities that constitute the bipolar styles display some between-country differentiation. For example, the hierarchical model, as shown in Figure 6, specifies latent introversion and extroversion variables underlying the high-order extroversion-introversion dimension and also specifies a latent variable underlying the organized-flexible dimension. The hierarchical model provides the best fit for some countries but not for others, suggesting that between-country differences exist in the qualities underlying the extroversion-introversion and organized-flexible dimensions. However, the four bipolar styles represent the broadest, most general dimensions of temperament. Despite possible between-country differences with some of the underlying qualities that characterize these dimensions, the four bipolar styles appear to capture the rich complexity of childrens temperament. The four bipolar style model is not incompatible with differentiated (e.g., hierarchical) models that focus on more specific qualities. Also, the intercorrelations of the dimensions display some between-country differences. SSQ theory holds that the dimensions are uncorrelated. In general, weak to moderate intercorrelations were found. However, the Extroverted-Introverted and Thinking-Feeling dimensions correlate for Australian and Zimbabwean children. The

PAGE 110

99 Practical-Imaginative and Thinking-Feeling dimensions correlate for Philippine children. The Thinking-Feeling and Organized-Flexible dimensions correlate for children from Gaza. Nevertheless, despite these significant intercorrelations, a four dimension model provides the best fit for the data obtained from all eight countries (i.e., Australia, China, Costa Rica, Gaza, Nigeria, the Philippines, the United States, and Zimbabwe). Implications Cross-National Implications Recent research suggests that temperament is analogous to the big five factors of personality (Angleitner & Ostendorf, 1994; McCrae et al., 2000). Five factor model proponents have proposed that the big five traits transcend differences in language and culture (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae et al., 2000). The results of the present study are congruent with the conclusion that temperaments transcend differences in language and culture. The present study extends these results through its use of confirmatory rather than exploratory factor analytic techniques. The use of confirmatory techniques makes the present study a more rigorous and direct evaluation of temperament structure than those provided by McCrae and colleagues. Methodological Implications The present study provides a cross-national examination of the structure of a forced-choice measure of childrens temperament. Accomplishing this endeavor yielded some methodological implications that may be useful to researchers interested in conducting similar research. Confirmatory factor analysis. Although several methods (e.g., exploratory factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis) exist for engaging in the analysis of test structure across countries (van de Vijver &

PAGE 111

100 Leung, 1996), confirmatory factor analysis has several advantages over alternative methods. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) requires a priori specification of model parameters (Byrne, 1998). A priori specification relies on theoretical guidance and reduces the probability of making incorrect decisions about structure. Second, researchers using CFA are able to simultaneously perform analyses for multiple countries. The present study tested invariance in factor loadings, factor correlations, (i.e., factor structure), and measurement residuals. Researchers conducting multi-group analyses also could test for invariance of intercepts and means. Third, assuming some differences are found, CFA may be used to examine each country and empirically test hypotheses. Finally, researchers using CFA may directly test and compare the relative fit of plausible competing models (Byrne, 1998). The examination of rival hypotheses is a hallmark of strong validation programs (Keith & Kranzler, 1999). Open constructs. The SSQ bipolar styles are conceptualized as open constructs (Pap, 1953). Open constructs obtain meaning through theoretical variables. Thus, attempts to specify observable behaviors by which the constructs can be evaluated are difficult (Millon, 1991). The development of the SSQ was driven by Jung's theory of temperament as augmented by Myers and Briggs. Although the four bipolar styles that correspond to the Jungian temperaments are the concepts of interest, the present confirmatory factor analyses suggest that underlying variables exist. This finding indicates that failure to specify underlying variables in the confirmatory factor model may yield erroneous conclusions about test structure.

PAGE 112

101 Dichotomous data. The SSQ uses dichotomous items. Dichotomous variables restrict variance and may violate the distributional assumptions of the maximum likelihood method typically used in confirmatory factor analyses. To address this problem, tetrachoric correlations were computed and used in confirmatory factor analyses. Tetrachoric correlations are computed using a formula for binary data that corrects observed covariances. Scholars generally have viewed trait theory as more empirically sound than type theory, perhaps because its tenets are easier to test with the common statistical procedures familiar to academic psychology (Newman, 1995b). Tetrachoric correlations and confirmatory factor analysis may be valuable techniques for researchers who use dichotomous data, such as those interested in testing the tenets of type theory. Test Validity Implications Relative to many psychological tests (e.g., published tests of intelligence and academic achievement), the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the SSQ are less amenable to empirical examination with commonly used statistical procedures. Personality assessment in general has been critiqued as lagging behind other areas of psychological testing such as the measurement of intelligence and achievement (Martin, 1988). The construct validity of most existing personality measures has not been substantiated with strong programs of construct validation. Such programs emphasize the importance of theoretical guidance during test development and validation (Benson, 1998) as well as the recognition of plausible rival hypotheses (Keith & Kranzler, 1999). Testing practices supported by strong programs of construct validity adhere to the standards established jointly by the American Educational Research Association et al. (1999). SSQ development was guided by theory. The current study examines plausible

PAGE 113

102 alternative hypotheses about test structure and contributes to the process of substantiating the measure with a strong program of construct validation. The results of the present study provide additional construct validity support for the SSQ. Past studies of SSQ structure have utilized factor analytic procedures (e.g., Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996; Stafford, 1994; Stafford & Oakland, 1996). The results of the confirmatory factor analyses in the present study are consistent with the results of factor analytic studies. Both types of studies have yielded four bipolar dimensions. The SSQ was developed as an extension of the MBTI. Although weaknesses are evident with personality measures in general, the psychometric properties and overall merit of the MBTI specifically have been vociferously criticized (e.g., Pittenger, 1993). However, recent confirmatory factor analytic research (Bess, Harvey, & Swartz, 2003) supports the construct validity of the MBTI. The MBTI is used frequently in applied organizational and assessment settings for such purposes as career-counseling, self-development, team building, and highly litigious purposes such as employee selection and placement (Bess, Harvey, & Swartz, 2003). Although the SSQ was developed as an extension of the MBTI, its popularity with test users in educational settings does not parallel the popularity of the MBTI in business settings. The SSQ is similar to the MBTI and can be used for many of the same purposes. Theoretical considerations were prominent in the development of both instruments and both appear to measure the constructs they were intended to measure. Given the immense popularity and long history of the MBTI, educators appear to be underutilizing the SSQ. Moreover, the results of the present study suggest that the SSQ may be appropriate for use cross-nationally. Thus, the test could be normed and marketed internationally.

PAGE 114

103 Limitations One weakness of the present study pertains to sample sizes. The United States sample was large. Although the sample sizes obtained from the other countries in this study would be considered large when judged by other studies, they are considered marginally large enough for the use of confirmatory factor analysis. Confidence in the accuracy of results increases as sample size increases. Another weakness is found in the best fitting model obtained following post hoc assignment of items into qualities. A priori specifications are empirically superior to post hoc specifications. This fact does not challenge the validity of the underlying theory, as the temperament types are conceptualized as collections of behavioral consistencies. The results do suggest that assigning items into sub-temperament qualities may be an empirically useful consideration when designing self-report measures of temperament. Directions for Future Research Future studies might involve administering other measures of temperament and personality (e.g., the NEO-PI) simultaneously with the SSQ. Confirmatory factor analytic techniques could be used to empirically test the convergent and discriminate validity of the temperament and personality measures administered to participants. Convergent and discriminate validity refers to the degree constructs correlate with and differ from variables in accordance with theoretical predictions (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Such studies would be useful in extending knowledge pertaining to the structure of and relationship between temperament and personality. Watson (2000) has shown that affective (i.e., mood) traits are strongly related to four of the Big Five dimensions (all but Openness) of personality. By extrapolation, the SSQ styles likely have strong affective components. Future research is needed to test this

PAGE 115

104 hypothesis. Moreover, useful information might be obtained by exploring relationships between the SSQ styles and other possible lower-order qualities (e.g., sociability or conscientiousness). The results of the present study suggest the SSQ styles may correlate strongly in some countries (e.g., Australia, Gaza, the Philippines, and Zimbabwe). Future research is needed to examine these interrelations in order to determine if and why strong interrelationships exist. Some SSQ items may function differently in different countries. Therefore, future research is needed to examine the SSQ at the item level. For example, some translated items may not have retained their original meaning. Moreover, it may be useful to examine cultural differences at the level of item type, as recent research suggests that certain types of items may be more prone to bias than others (Osterlind, Miao, Sheng, & Chia, 2004). Future research also might focus on the application of the SSQ to solve applied assessment problems. For example, research could examine the use of SSQ data to guide pedagogical strategies. SSQ data also could be used for team building purposes (e.g., for students who collaborate in the classroom as well as in extracurricular activities such as sports). Many such studies have been undertaken by researchers interested in the MBTI (Bess, Harvey, & Swartz, 2003). Although the SSQ is similar to the MBTI and inferences from its scores are likely useful for many of the same purposes, such claims should be subjected to empirical examination.

PAGE 116

APPENDIX A LISTING OF PARCEL ITEMS Table A-1. Parcel items for EI (extroverted-introverted). Parcel Items in Parcel ei 1 1, 26, 33, 52, 62 ei 2 4, 19 36, 49 ei 3 7, 24, 46, 60 ei 4 10, 22, 39, 54, 65 ei 5 13, 16, 42, 57, 67 Table A-2. Parcel items for PM (practical-imaginative). Parcel Items in Parcel pm 1 3, 6, 9, 64 pm 2 11, 21, 31, 41 pm 3 15, 29, 34, 48 pm 4 25, 45, 51, 68 Table A-3. Parcel items for TF (thinking-feeling). Parcel Items in Parcel tf 1 12,18, 29, 37, 55 tf 2 24, 28, 43, 50, 61 Table A-4. Parcel items for OL (organized-flexible). Parcel Items in Parcel ol1 2, 23, 32, 53 ol 2 5, 38, 39, 56 ol3 8, 10, 40, 41, 58 ol 4 14, 27, 47, 59, 63 ol 5 17, 30, 35, 66 ol6 20, 44, 54, 69 105

PAGE 117

APPENDIX B STANDARDIZED REGRESSION WEIGHTS AND LATENT FACTOR CORRELATIONS FOR THE PARCEL MODEL Table B-1. Standardized regression weights for the Australian sample. Parcel EI OL PM TF ei1 .02 ei2 .10 ei3 -.36 ei4 -.17 ei5 -.12 ol1 .34 ol2 .70 ol3 .08 ol4 .19 ol5 -.55 ol6 .66 pm1 .19 pm2 .33 pm3 .47 pm4 .12 tf1 1.00 tf2 -.02 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. 106

PAGE 118

107 Table B-2. Standardized regression weights for the Chinese sample. Parcel EI OL PM TF ei1 .00 ei2 -.03 ei3 -.25 ei4 -.18 ei5 -.00 ol1 .35 ol2 .82 ol3 .17 ol4 .24 ol5 -.47 ol6 .53 pm1 .15 pm2 .34 pm3 .07 pm4 .32 tf1 .06 tf2 .37 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table B-3. Standardized regression weights for the Costa Rican sample. Parcel EI OL PM TF ei1 .03 ei2 .11 ei3 -.17 ei4 -.12 ei5 -.06 ol1 .47 ol2 .62 ol3 -.06 ol4 -.08 ol5 -.70 ol6 .76 pm1 .24 pm2 .24 pm3 .69 pm4 .08 tf1 .35 tf2 .09 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling.

PAGE 119

108 Table B-4. Standardized regression weights for the Gazan sample. Parcel EI OL PM TF ei1 .00 ei2 -.02 ei3 -.04 ei4 .09 ei5 1.00 ol1 .32 ol2 .45 ol3 .21 ol4 -.20 ol5 -.57 ol6 .69 pm1 .54 pm2 .52 pm3 -.09 pm4 -.11 tf1 1.00 tf2 .07 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table B-5. Standardized regression weights for the Nigerian sample. Parcel EI OL PM TF ei1 .01 ei2 .05 ei3 1.00 ei4 .02 ei5 -.15 ol1 .35 ol2 .41 ol3 .08 ol4 .04 ol5 -.52 ol6 .64 pm1 1.00 pm2 .12 pm3 -.01 pm4 .06 tf1 .14 tf2 .45 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling.

PAGE 120

109 Table B-6. Standardized regression weights for the Philippine sample. Parcel EI OL PM TF ei1 .00 ei2 .00 ei3 1.00 ei4 -.01 ei5 -.02 ol1 .36 ol2 .67 ol3 .20 ol4 -.18 ol5 -.59 ol6 .33 pm1 1.00 pm2 .17 pm3 -.04 pm4 .09 tf1 .08 tf2 .27 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table B-7. Standardized regression weights for the USA sample. Parcel EI OL PM TF ei1 .00 ei2 .03 ei3 -.26 ei4 -.06 ei5 -.04 ol1 .04 ol2 .55 ol3 -.04 ol4 -.32 ol5 -.60 ol6 .64 pm1 .01 pm2 .03 pm3 3.40 pm4 -.01 tf1 .05 tf2 -.25 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling.

PAGE 121

110 Table B-8. Standardized regression weights for the Zimbabwe sample. Parcel EI OL PM TF ei1 .09 ei2 -.08 ei3 -.24 ei4 -.30 ei5 .02 ol1 .13 ol2 .38 ol3 .24 ol4 .09 ol5 -.37 ol6 .55 pm1 1.97 pm2 .09 pm3 .02 pm4 .09 tf1 .05 tf2 -.75 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table B-9. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Australian sample. EI OL PM TF EI -1.12 -.33 .07 OL .08 -.06 PM .42 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table B-10. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Chinese sample. EI OL PM TF EI -1.97 -.33 -1.34 OL -.40 -.79 PM 1.21 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table B-11. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Costa Rican sample. EI OL PM TF EI -2.09 -.36 .21 OL -.15 -.16 PM 1.30 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling.

PAGE 122

111 Table B-12. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Gaza sample. EI OL PM TF EI -.43 -.14 .07 OL .72 .02 PM .19 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table B-13. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Nigerian sample. EI OL PM TF EI .27 -.01 .56 OL -.08 .13 PM .02 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table B-14. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Philippine sample. EI OL PM TF EI .33 .04 .82 OL .09 -.88 PM -.19 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table B-15. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the USA sample. EI OL PM TF EI -1.74 .05 3.16 OL -.06 -.18 PM .06 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table B-16. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Zimbabwe sample. EI OL PM TF EI -1.68 .05 .69 OL -.02 .05 PM .02 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling.

PAGE 123

APPENDIX C CONTENT OF MODIFIED PARCELS Sociability 4. After school I like to do something (alone, with friends) 57. When I have free time, I like to (do something with friends, spend time by myself) 62. When I get home from school (I want to talk to someone about my day, I want to be alone for a while) 67. I most like to (read or watch TV, talk with friends) Restraint 24. Most people are likely to say I am (brave, shy) 30. When I see new students in my class (I introduce myself to them, I stand back and watch them for a while) 49. I make new friends (more quickly than others, more slowly than others) 52. If others are playing a new game, (I watch them for a while, I jump right in and join them) Assertiveness 1. When in a large group, I most often (talk, listen) 26. I often (tell people what I really feel, keep my feelings to myself) 46. I most often (keep my real thoughts to myself, tell people what I am really thinking) 54. In class, I talk (a lot, a little) Introspection 10. In school I prefer (quiet seatwork, active work in groups) 19. If I need to think about something important, (I find a friend I can talk with, I go for a walk alone) 36. I like sports that (I can do by myself like biking and swimming, I can play with a team like volleyball and baseball) 42. In school I like to work (in a group, on my own) Openness 13. I like to have (a few good friends, lots of friends) 16. I almost always (hide my feelings, show my feelings) 33. When something really good happens to me, (I am pleased but keep calm, I get very excited and show it) 39. When planning my birthday party, I want to invite (a few good friends, many friends) 65. When I'm with friends (I often listen to others who tell jokes, I'm often the one who tells jokes) 112

PAGE 124

113 Discipline 5. When doing school work, usually (I start it just before it's due, I finish it long before it's due) 20. When my parents or teachers give me many jobs, (I start with the one I like and don't plan the order, I make a list of them to do in order) 23. Spelling or math contests (are fun and make students want to learn, are mean because the losers feel bad) 27. It is more important (to like what I am doing, to finish what I start) 38. If I have work to do, I like to do it (after I play, before I play) 60. I do my homework (at the last minute, as soon as possible) Flexibility 8. I like to work on (one thing at a time, many things at the same time) 14. When working, I most often want (to do a good job, to please others) 35. I want my work to be (done correctly, pleasing to others) 47. When practicing something like a musical instrument or a sport, (I carefully watch the time to be sure I practice enough, I lose track of the time and have fun with what I am doing) 56. When walking to a friend's house, (I sometimes wonder around on my way there, I walk straight there) 58. The way I see it, people should (make their work into play, work before they play) 63. When do something on a computer, (I just use it, I wonder how it works) Organization 2. When planning to be away from home for a few days, ( I put stuff in my suitcase right before I leave, I make lists of what I want to take) 17. I like my desk to be (clean and orderly, any old way) 32. After playing with games, ( I leave them out, I put them back where they belong) 44. When friends spend the night at my house, (I just see what happens when we are together, I plan what we will do together) 66. In my room (everything has its place, I dont care if I have to search for things) 69. When I have school work, I most often (need to be reminded when it's due, remember when it's due) Conscientiousness 35. I want my work to be (done correctly, pleasing to others) 40. When I spend my money on something, (I think about it for a long time, I decide quickly) 53. When going to someone's home, I like to be there (a little before or after they said, at the exact time they said) 59. If I'm in trouble with my parents, ( I try to talk my way out of it, I keep quiet)

PAGE 125

114 Creativity 3. I do my chores at home (the way most people do them, in my own way) 11. My ideas (are about the same as those of others, are often different than those of others) 31. I do my homework (the way most students do it, in my own way) 45. I look up to people most who (have ideas that are different, have ideas that work) 48. I like to be with people who have (practical ideas, unusual ideas) 64. I like to play games that (already have rules, let us make up rules as we go along) Liberalism 6. In school I like to learn about (ideas that make me think in new ways, facts that help me know lots of things) 21. I like TV programs that (teach me different ways, teach me more facts) 29. Teachers are best who (teach me to think in new ways, give me lots of information) 68. My head seems filled with (big ideas, lots of little facts) Ingenuity 9. I enjoy listening to others tell stories that are (made up, true) 15. I like school subjects that (give me usable skills, spark my imagination) 25. I like to write about something that (really happened, I make up) 34. I prefer stories that (are full of detail, let my imagination wonder) 41. For me, using my imagination (is boring, is fun) 51. I like to hear stories that (others make up, really happened to others) Sensitivity 12. When people disappoint me, (I forget it soon, I take a while to get over my hurt feelings) 18. When it comes to the sad part of movies, (I feel sad, I'm not really bothered) 28. When people say mean things to me, even when they are teasing, (they hurt my feelings, they do not bother me much) 61. If someone breaks a promise, (I feel hurt for a long time, I get over it quickly) Passion 37. When I see someone who is upset, I (get upset too, believe they'll get over it) 55. When I'm in a group that is upset because of some bad news, (I cry right with them, I don't cry because someone has to be strong) 43. If I could, I would prefer to help (design a house, build a house) 50. I decide on things based on what's in my (head, heart)

PAGE 126

APPENDIX D STANDARDIZED REGRESSION WEIGHTS AND LATENT FACTOR CORRELATIONS FOR THE MODIFIED MODEL Table D-1. Standardized regression weights for the Australian sample. Quality EI OL PM TF Sociability .16 Restraint .07 Assertiveness -.09 Introspection .22 Openness .03 Sensitivity .88 Passion .22 Discipline .87 Flexibility .11 Organization .26 Conscientiousness .14 Creativity .24 Liberalism -.69 Ingenuity .26 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table D-2. Standardized regression weights for the Chinese sample. Quality EI OL PM TF Sociability .18 Restraint .55 Assertiveness .35 Introspection .07 Openness -.39 Sensitivity .39 Passion .51 Discipline .26 Flexibility .74 Organization .21 Conscientiousness .37 Creativity .39 Liberalism -.18 Ingenuity .56 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. 115

PAGE 127

116 Table D-3. Standardized regression weights for the Costa Rican sample. Quality EI OL PM TF Sociability .19 Restraint .20 Assertiveness -.20 Introspection .64 Openness -.14 Sensitivity .35 Passion .35 Discipline .66 Flexibility .19 Organization .27 Conscientiousness .27 Creativity 1.32 Liberalism .05 Ingenuity .08 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table D-4. Standardized regression weights for the Gazan sample. Quality EI OL PM TF Sociability .06 Restraint -.22 Assertiveness -.60 Introspection -.10 Openness .35 Sensitivity .31 Passion .46 Discipline .54 Flexibility .25 Organization .35 Conscientiousness .22 Creativity .23 Liberalism .25 Ingenuity .24 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling.

PAGE 128

117 Table D-5. Standardized regression weights for the Nigerian sample. Quality EI OL PM TF Sociability .05 Restraint 1.27 Assertiveness .02 Introspection .10 Openness -.21 Sensitivity .26 Passion .45 Discipline .10 Flexibility .44 Organization .11 Conscientiousness .38 Creativity .41 Liberalism -.21 Ingenuity .21 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table D-6. Standardized regression weights for the Philippine sample. Quality EI OL PM TF Sociability .11 Restraint .67 Assertiveness .04 Introspection .09 Openness -.39 Sensitivity .31 Passion .09 Discipline 1.50 Flexibility .00 Organization .13 Conscientiousness -.09 Creativity .16 Liberalism -.02 Ingenuity -.18 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling.

PAGE 129

118 Table D-7. Standardized regression weights for the USA sample. Quality EI OL PM TF Sociability .04 Restraint -.22 Assertiveness -.55 Introspection .02 Openness .32 Sensitivity .13 Passion .62 Discipline .31 Flexibility -.35 Organization -.06 Conscientiousness -.54 Creativity .17 Liberalism -.49 Ingenuity .41 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table D-8. Standardized regression weights for the Zimbabwe sample. Quality EI OL PM TF Sociability .31 Restraint .50 Assertiveness -.06 Introspection .03 Openness -.06 Sensitivity .27 Passion -.13 Discipline 1.00 Flexibility -.02 Organization .18 Conscientiousness -.03 Creativity 1.00 Liberalism .07 Ingenuity .07 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table D-9. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Australian sample. EI OL PM TF EI .00 .00 .91 OL -.47 -.10 PM .15 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling.

PAGE 130

119 Table D-10. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Chinese sample. EI OL PM TF EI -.15 -.27 .43 OL .12 .13 PM .28 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table D-11. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Costa Rican sample. EI OL PM TF EI -.52 .15 .33 OL .11 -.19 PM -.03 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table D-12. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Gaza sample. EI OL PM TF EI -.63 -.56 .23 OL 1.06 -.12 PM .64 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table D-13. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Nigerian sample. EI OL PM TF EI -.15 .17 .13 OL .24 -.12 PM .44 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table D-14. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Philippine sample. EI OL PM TF EI -.20 .02 .13 OL .37 -.12 PM .44 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling.

PAGE 131

120 Table D-15. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the USA sample. EI OL PM TF EI -.36 .19 -.10 OL -.13 .12 PM -.36 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling. Table D-16. Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Zimbabwe sample. EI OL PM TF EI -.09 .32 .77 OL -.05 -.31 PM .29 EI = Extroverted-Introverted. OL = Organized-Flexible. PM = Practical-Imaginative. TF = Thinking-Feeling.

PAGE 132

LIST OF REFERENCES Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Aldenerfer, M.S., & Blashfield, R.K. (1984). Cluster analysis. (Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-044). Newbury Park, CA. Allport, G.W., & Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait names: A psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 63. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological Testing. (7th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1994). Temperament and the Big Five Factors of personality. In C.F. Halverson, G.A. Kohstamm, and R.P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structures of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Arbuckle, J.L. (2003). Amos 5.0 [Computer software]. Chicago: Smallwaters. Aune, K.S., & Aune, R.K. Cultural differences in the self-reported experience and expression of emotions in relationships. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 67-81. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bassett, K.D. (2001). Nature, nurture, and temperament: Cross-national comparisons of temperament styles displayed by Australian, Chinese, and United States students. Unpublished masters thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville. Bassett, K.D. (2004). Nature, nurture, and temperament: Comparisons of temperament styles displayed by United States students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville. 121

PAGE 133

122 Bates, J.E., & Wachs, T.D. (1994). Preface. In J.E. Bates and T.D. Wachs (Eds.), Temperament: Individual differences at the interface of biology and behavior. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Bates, J.E., & Wachs, T.D., & Emde (1994). Toward practical uses for biological concepts of temperament. In J.E. Bates and T.D. Wachs (Eds.), Temperament: Individual differences at the interface of biology and behavior. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A test anxiety example. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 17, 10-17. Bess, T.L., Harvey, R.J., & Swartz, D. (2003). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Bouchard, T.J. (1996). Genetics and evolution: Implications for personality theories. In J. Newman (Ed.), Measures of the Five Factor Model and psychological type: A major convergence of research and theory. (pp. 19-40). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type. Broer, E., & McCarley, N. (1999). Using and validating the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in mainland China. Journal of Psychological Type, 51, 5-21. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.) Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Buss, A.H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development. In K. MacCorquodale (Series Ed.), Wiley Series in Behavior. New York: Wiley. Buss, A.H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural Equation Modeling with Lisrel, Prelis, and Simplis: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminate validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. Campos, J.J., Barrett, K.C., Lamb, M.E., Goldsmith, H.H., & Stenberg, C. (1983). Socioemotional development. In M.M. Haith & J.J. Campos (Eds.), P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Infancy and developmental psychobiology (pp. 783-915). New York: Wiley.

PAGE 134

123 Carey, W.B. (1970). A simplified method for measuring infant temperament. Journal of Pediatrics, 77, 188-194. Carey, W.B., & McDevitt, S.C. (1978). Revision of the Infant Temperament Questionnaire. Pediatrics, 61, 735-739. Carlson, S.R. (2001). Cross-cultural differences in the temperament patterns of children from China, Costa Rica, and the United States. Unpublished Masters Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville. Cattell, R.B. (1982). The Inheritance of Personality and Ability: Research Methods and Findings. New York: Academic Press. Cattell, R.B., & Gibbons, B.D. (1968). Personality factor structure of the combined Guilford and Cattell personality questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 107-120. Cattell, R.B., & Kline, P. (1977). The scientific analysis of personality and motivation. In D.T. Lykken (Series Ed.), Personality and psychopathology: A series of monographs, texts, and treatises. New York: Academic Press. Cheung, F.M., Leung, K. Fan, R.M., Son, W.Z., Zhang, J.X., & Zhang, J.P. (1996). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 181-199. Church, A.T. (2000). Culture and personality: Toward an integrated cultural trait psychology. Journal of Personality, 69, 651-703. Church, A.T., Katigbak, M.S. & Reyes, J.A. (1998). Further exploration of Filipino personality structure using the lexical approach: Do the Big-Five or Big Seven dimensions emerge? European Journal of Personality, 12, 249-270. Church, A.T., & Lonner, W.J. (1998). The cross-cultural perspective in the study of personality: rationale and current research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 32-62. Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1985). NEO-PI Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cronbach, L.J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Cronbach, L.J., & Gleser, G.C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

PAGE 135

124 deVries, M.W. (1984). Temperament and infant mortality among the Masai of East Africa. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 1189-1194. Diener, E. (2000). Introduction to the special section of personality differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 120-121. Eysenck, H.J. (1982). Personality, genetics, and behavior: Selected papers. In C.D. Spielberger, (General Ed.), Centennial Psychology Series. New York: Praegar. Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, M.W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum. Fijneman, Y.A., Willemsen, M.E., Poortinga, Y.H. (1996). Individualism-collectivism: An empirical study of a conceptual issue. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 381-402. Garrison, W.T., Earls, F.J. (1987). Temperament and Child Psychopathology. In A. E. Kazdin (Series Ed.), Developmental Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry Series: Vol. 2. Glutting, J.J., Youngstrom, E.A., Oakland, T., Watkins, M.W. (1996). Situational specificity and generality of test behaviors for samples of normal and referred children. School Psychology Review, 25, 94-107. Goldsmith, H.H., Buss, A.H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M.K., Thomas, A., Chess, S., Hinde, R.A., & McCall, R.B. (1987). Roundtable: What is temperament? Four approaches. Child Development, 58, 505-529. Goldsmith, H.H., Lemery, K.S., Aksan, N., & Buss, K.A. (2000). Temperamental substrates of personality development. In V.I. Molfese and D.L. Molfese (Eds.), Temperament and personality development across the life span (pp. 1-32). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goldsmith, H.H., & Rieser-Danner, L. (1986). Variation among temperament theories and validation studies of temperament assessment. In G.A. Kohnstamm (Ed.)., Temperament discussed: Temperament and development in infancy and childhood (pp. 1-9). Berwyn, PA: Swets North America. Gosling, S.D., & John, O.P. (1998). Personality dimensions in dogs, cats, and hyenas. In S.D. Gosling & S. Suomi (Chairs). From mice to men: Bridging the gap between personality and animal researchers. Symposium conducted at the 10th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society. Washington, DC. Gray, J.A. (1991). The neuropsychology of temperament. In J. Stelau & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Explorations in temperament: International perspectives on theory and measurement (pp. 105-128). New York: Plenum.

PAGE 136

125 Guilford, J.S., Zimmerman, W.S., & Guilford, J.P. (1976) The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey Handbook. San Diego: Edits. Gunnar, M.R. (1990). The psychobiology of infant temperament. In J. Colombo & J. Fagen (Eds.), Individual differences in infancy: Reliability, stability, prediction (pp. 387-410). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hambleton, R.K. (2003). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests in multiple languages and cultures. In R.K. Hambleton, P. Merenda, & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological testing for cross-cultural assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. Hambleton, R.K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. As seen in the Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1, 1-30. Retrieved February 28, 2005, from http://www.testpublishers.org/Documents/journal0114. pdf Hambleton, R.K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Henderson, L.J. (1913). The fitness of the environment. New York: Macmillan. Holland, P.W., & Thayer, D.T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Matel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H.I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Horton, C.B.,Oakland, T. (1997). Temperament-based learning styles as moderators of academic achievement. Adolescence, 32, 131-141. Hsu, F. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A.J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives. New York: Tavistock Press. International Conference on Test Adaptation: Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures: May 20-22, 1999. Georgetown University Conference Center, Washington D.C. Joreskog, K.G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183-202. Jung, C.G. (1971). Psychological types. (R.F.C. Hull, Revision of Trans. By H.G. Baynes). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921). Kagan, J. (1989). Temperamental contributions to social behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 668-674.

PAGE 137

126 Kagan, J. (1994). Galen's Prophecy: Temperament in human nature. New York: Basic Books. Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II: Temperament, character, intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis. Keith, T.Z. (1997). Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in understanding the constructs measured by intelligence tests. In D.P. Flanagan, J.L. Genshaft, & P.L. Harrison. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 373-402). New York: Guilford. Keith, T.Z., & Kranzler, J.H. (1999). The absence of structural fidelity precludes construct validity: Rejoinder to Naglieri on what the Cognitive Assessment System does and does not measure. School Psychology Review, 28, 303-321. Keogh, B.K. (2003). Temperament in the classroom: Understanding individual differences. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. King, J.E., & Figueredo, A.J. (1997). The five-factor model plus dominance in chimpanzee personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 257-271. Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford. Kluckhohn, C. (1954). Culture and behavior. In G. Lidzey (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 921-976). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Kluckhohn, C., & Murray, H.A. (1953). Personality formation: The determinants. In C. Kluckhohn, H.A. Murray, & D.M. Schneider (Eds.), Personality in nature, society, and culture (2nd ed., pp. 53-67). New York: Knopf. Kohnstamm, G.A. (1989). Temperament in childhood: Cross-cultural and sex differences. In G.A. Kohnstamm, J.E. Bates, & M.K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 483-508). Chichester, England: Wiley. Kruskal, J.B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. (Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-011). Lemery, K.S., Goldsmith, H.H., Klinner, M.D., & Mrazek, D.A. (1999). Developmental models of infant and childhood temperament. Developmental Psychology, 35, 189-204. Lombardo, G.P., & Foschi, R. (2002). The European origins of personality psychology. European Psychologist, 7, 134-145.

PAGE 138

127 Long, J.S., (1983a). Confirmatory factor analysis: A preface to Lisrel. (Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-033). Newbury, CA. Long, J.S., (1983b). Covariance structure models: An introduction to Lisrel. (Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-034) Newbury, CA. Macdaid, G.P., McCaulley, M.H., & Kainz, R.I. (1986). Atlas of type tables. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type. Macoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Marsella, A.J., & Leong, F.T. (1995). Cross-cultural issues in personality and career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 202-218. Martin, R. (1988). Assessment of personality and behavior problems: Infancy through adolescence. New York: Guilford Press. Martin, R.P. Wisenbaker, J., & Huttunen, M. (1994). Review of factor analytic studies of temperament measures based on the Thomas-Chess structural model: Implications for the big Five. In C.F. Halverson, G.A. Kohnstamm, and R.P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 157-172). McCaulley, M.H., & Moody, R.A. (2001). Multicultural applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In L.A. Suzuki, J.G. Ponterotto, & P.J. Meller (Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural Assessment: Clinical, Psychological, and Educational Applications (2nd ed.). (pp. 279-306). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516. McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the Five Factor Model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17-40. McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., Ostendorf, F. Angleitner, A., Hrebikkova, M., Avia, M.D., Sanz, J., & Sanchez-Bernardos, M.L. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173-186. Merenda, P.F. (2004). Cross-cultural adaptation of educational and psychological testing. In Hambleton, R., Meranda, P., & Spielberger, C. (Eds.). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NY: Erlbaum.

PAGE 139

128 Merenda, P.F. (1997). Methods, plainly speaking: A guide to the proper use of factor analysis in the conduct and reporting of research: Pitfalls to avoid. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 156-164. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13-103). New York: Macmillan. Millon, T. (1991). Classification in psychopathology: Rationale, alternatives, and standards. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 245-261. Myers, I.B. & McCaulley, M.H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H., Quenk, N.L., & Hammer, A.L. (1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Nelson, C.A. (1994). Neural bases of Infant development. In J.E. Bates and T.D. Wachs (Eds.), Temperament: Individual differences at the interface of biology and behavior. (pp. 47-82). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Newman, J. (1996a). A brief history of the science of personality. In J. Newman (Ed.), Measures of the Five Factor Model and psychological type: A major convergence of research and theory. (pp. 1-18). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type. Newman, J. (1996b). Trait theory, type theory and the biological basis of personality. In J. Newman (Ed.), Measures of the Five Factor Model and psychological type: A major convergence of research and theory. (pp. 63-80). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type. Norman, W.T. (1963). Towards an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583. Oakland, T. (2002). Temperament styles of students in five countries. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Association of Applied Psychology, Singapore. Oakland, T. (2004). Selected ethical issues relevant to test adaptations. In Hambleton, R., Meranda, P., & Spielberger, C. (Eds.). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NY: Erlbaum. Oakland, T., Glutting, J.J., & Horton, C.B. (1996). Student Styles Questionnaire Manual. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation.

PAGE 140

129 Oakland, T., Stafford, M.E., Horton, C.B., & Glutting, J.J. (2002). Temperament and vocational preferences: Age, gender, and racial-ethnic comparisons using the Student Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 97-314. Osterlin, S.J., Miao, D., Sheng, Y., & Chia, R. (2004). Adapting item format for cultural effects in translated tests: Cultural effects on construct validity of the Chinese versions of the MBTI. International Journal of Testing, 4, 61-74. Pap, A. (1953). Reduction-sentences and open concepts. Methodos, 5, 3-30. Piker, S. (1998). Contributions to psychological anthropology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 9-31. Pittenger, D.J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63, 467-488. Plomin, R., & Saudino, K.J. (1994). Quantitative genetics and molecular genetics. In J.E. Bates and T.D. Wachs (Eds.), Temperament: Individual differences at the interface of biology and behavior. (pp. 143-173). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Quenk, N. (1993). Personality types or personality traits: what difference does it make? Bulletin of Psychological Type, 16, 11-14. Quenk, N. (2000). Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment. In A.S. Kaufman and N.L. Kaufman (Series Eds.), Essentials of Psychological Assessment. New York: Wiley. Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and environmental influences on personality: A study of twins reared together using the selfand peer-report NEO-FFI scales. Journal of Personality, 65, 449-475. Rothbart, M.K. (1981). Measurement of temperament in infancy. Child Development, 52, 569-578. Rothbart, M.K. (1999). Temperament, fear, and shyness. In L.A. Schmidt & J. Schulkin (Eds.), Extreme fear, shyness, and social phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and clinical outcomes (pp. 88-93). New York: Oxford University Press. Rothbart, M.K., Ahadi, S.A., & Evans, D.E. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122-135. Rothbart, M.K., & Bates, J. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 105-176). New York: Wiley.

PAGE 141

130 Rothbart, M.K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of individual differences in temperament. In M.E. Lamb & A.L. Brown (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 37-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Sattler, J. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego: J.M. Sattler Publishing. Schweder, R., & Bourne, E. (1984). Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally? In R.A. Schweder & R.A. Levine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self,and emotion (pp. 158-199). New York: Cambridge University Press. Stafford, M.E. (1994). Validity of the STAR: Student Styles Questionnaire: Racial-Ethnic Comparisons (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas) Dissertation Abstracts. Stafford, M.E., & Oakland, T.D. (1996). Validity of temperament constructs using the Student Styles Questionnaire: Comparison for three racial-ethnic groups. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 109-120. Steinmetz, J.E. (1994). Brain Substrates of Emotion and temperament. In J.E. Bates and T.D. Wachs (Eds.), Temperament: Individual differences at the interface of biology and behavior. (pp. 17-46). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Strelau, J. (1987). The concept of temperament in personality research. European Journal of Personality, 1, 107-117. Super, C.M., & Harkness, S. (1986). Temperament, development, and culture. In R. Plomin & J. Dunn (Eds.), The study of temperament: Changes, continuities and challenges (pp. 131-149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tanzer, N.K. (2004). Developing tests for use in multiple languages and cultures: A plea for simultaneous development. In R. Hambleton, P. Merenda, & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Teglasi, H. (1998). Introduction to mini-series: Implications of temperament for the practice of school psychology. School Psychology Review, 27, 475-478. Thayer, B. R. (1995). The relationship of temperament with respect to age, gender, and race/ethnicity in children and adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, (10-A), 3893. Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Triandis, H.C., & Suh, E.M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133-160. Tucker, L.R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (Personnel Research Section Report No. 984). Washington, DC: Department of the Army.

PAGE 142

131 van de Vijver, F. & Leung, K. (1996). Methods of data analysis of comparative research. In J.W. Berry, Y.H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume 1: Theory and Method: Second Edition (pp. 257-300). Pearson Allyn & Bacon. van de Vijver, F.J.R., Mylonas, K., Pavlopoulos, V., & Georgas, J.O. (2003). Methodology of Combining the WISC-III Data Sets. In J. Georgas, LG. Weiss, F.J.R. van de Vijver, & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.), Culture and Childrens Intelligence: Cross-Cultural Analysis of the WISC-III. Academic Press, van de Vijver, F.J.R., & Poortinga, Y.H. (1991). Testing across cultures. In R.K. Hambleton & J. Zaal (Eds.), Advances in educational and psychological testing (pp. 277-308). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. van de Vijver, F.J.R., & Poortinga, Y.H. (1992). Testing in culturally heterogeneous populations: When are cultural loadings desirable? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8, 17-24. van de Vijver, F.J.R., & Poortinga, Y.H. (2002). Structural equivalence in multilevel research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 141-156. Wachs, T.D. (1994). Fit, context, and the transition between temperament and personality. In C.F. Halverson, Jr., G.A. Kohnstamm, & R.P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 209-220). Hallsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Watson, D. (2000). Mood and Temperament. New York: Guilford. Williams, M.Q., Williams, T.F., Qisheng, X., & Xuemei, L. (1992). A glimpse of the psychological types of mainland Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Psychological Type, 23, 3-9.

PAGE 143

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nicholas Frank Benson was born in Cooperstown, North Dakota. He lived there until he completed high school. He attended college in Minnesota and majored in psychology. In 1994, Nicholas received the degree of Bachelor of Arts from Moorhead State University (Moorhead, MN). He went on to pursue graduate studies in psychology at Illinois State University (Normal) where he received a Master of Science degree. In the fall of 1997, he enrolled at the University of Florida to study school psychology. He received a dual Master of Arts in Education/Educational Specialist degree in 2001. On completion of this degree, he began working as a school psychologist for Broward County Public Schools. When he married, Nicholas transferred to Miami-Dade County Public Schools and soon started a family. He plans to continue working with children. One day, he hopes to teach and research at the University level. 132


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110320_AAAABQ INGEST_TIME 2011-03-20T11:06:49Z PACKAGE UFE0009520_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 105877 DFID F20110320_AAAVLF ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH benson_n_Page_055.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
cd82b248bd3b59e3ae02319c827c9f3e
SHA-1
6955cddffa7a51cb2c92f3a9f11b3ec70d3f0dc0
112750 F20110320_AAAVKR benson_n_Page_026.jp2
5f038f85a12aa6b02babbdc3ef72834a
ad6f277f19a9f5fef2430c2c014e61689660edb4
105506 F20110320_AAAVLG benson_n_Page_062.jp2
3d1995dac4469a1873b3ea1b34209982
460011d5b38cd680549ec57c6113870f8bac7d42
109930 F20110320_AAAVKS benson_n_Page_028.jp2
3aa405a63be7c063d387818976a7b63b
11208568d65c92bb5d52961fa58d49c13e8f641b
103316 F20110320_AAAVLH benson_n_Page_069.jp2
a9458c8a259378ac231e61a73c226d10
756264e0795e632864d5db0ae1fbb465d93b7632
110681 F20110320_AAAVKT benson_n_Page_029.jp2
00a8fa1747f01f84da8e60c6e7e59751
dfe74159c4bcaf6c91c2cb0c90e572455c95c905
111200 F20110320_AAAVLI benson_n_Page_070.jp2
65eb4c3fe4d1898130960e1bc915f030
6ffdc877869eb7d49e34acaace22c69a2add3c5f
1051981 F20110320_AAAVKU benson_n_Page_032.jp2
e8f9ba34b174440ef113d1e1991fa959
1ffdaf67988711b5e821dcee4017b3a59bb71f01
108439 F20110320_AAAVLJ benson_n_Page_071.jp2
f36c56d470893ec0cb46ba140f7b50d5
7148ae423961d6fd27f3cbdde6b123e02db46a51
1051966 F20110320_AAAVKV benson_n_Page_033.jp2
771f319239590fb9f140984b5469068f
21b83771b37299b0b462539dedc463c3dd3601ce
106892 F20110320_AAAVLK benson_n_Page_072.jp2
66ed72bf45e9e0ada9d15cde866e64dc
b24b9bf214f846f542529f4ee1e2ac568d9f8630
111525 F20110320_AAAVKW benson_n_Page_035.jp2
11ba7ededcbcb4180cf710226b7e5625
069f55f96cdc1ce0c30fc364deebc63f13f4e705
99206 F20110320_AAAVLL benson_n_Page_073.jp2
7ba497cb70c5f615b78f47e0bb801b45
90a7f4f7869a9d8326e4130485520b8003db4bd2
112673 F20110320_AAAVKX benson_n_Page_039.jp2
7e8943e506cff74b4a76391cbf4a1943
dd76401fd8e1abcf8001107d57b2728517cda7af
105201 F20110320_AAAVLM benson_n_Page_075.jp2
c2976dae60ee07dcadf227f82e701c1d
f3ae5c3287e04015f5155bd5d82f352a90a100bf
98065 F20110320_AAAVKY benson_n_Page_041.jp2
a6db5bfc5ab13d304f9b82fdaf843f19
9be44ba5df3f2c698427492c6e3ff4987899fd0b
69919 F20110320_AAAVMA benson_n_Page_095.jp2
89f20043acf269f382cc633140a60b7b
ac71e93b627ec3c6324352df2fb8fc01b17af0c8
106334 F20110320_AAAVLN benson_n_Page_076.jp2
331a6709dcb1ef7fee0752d767fb66d3
56f4e0d4abc96b5007f40e780941167fe9a2749a
106764 F20110320_AAAVKZ benson_n_Page_042.jp2
9d186f80edf54681ac1bc08c5fcc8386
24ba03dfbf6a28b39c4534b8b4aff49279d3ae08
100818 F20110320_AAAVMB benson_n_Page_099.jp2
2017845458716c1d2d05b0f3d3f4d6d4
f54b45c1c8c31e4bd83ccfea851399db8180dfe1
27291 F20110320_AAAVLO benson_n_Page_078.jp2
0036585e6cb1d7d7b2409282e4ea1143
f33dc17cf6f0798fb59967d12d395ec1c85dba47
124526 F20110320_AAAVMC benson_n_Page_100.jp2
11db81fbcbcf3369014c1fe9c928eaec
a1744f915628c27f57c043aed29c2c463689ba43
104050 F20110320_AAAVLP benson_n_Page_081.jp2
586c4fa9d0e730b1145a20a58cc6ed38
43efa1702f2ce237a4917c3be34f95e7ef4f6adb
1051965 F20110320_AAAVMD benson_n_Page_101.jp2
7e06beed4f3e30152505203bb1d9e6d3
59b1d1c76775a1df278eb51b9bca6279ce848e76
104108 F20110320_AAAVLQ benson_n_Page_082.jp2
aa26e27fc6700b9bd6581d6e2a672e26
02ab6987affc75b53c14019712f952446606eae9
100444 F20110320_AAAVME benson_n_Page_103.jp2
2217af56d9669a134f1372bce7ea9f17
816e0dbc8ed9b7d0ca06a727ca7e4a38d4489bf2
109693 F20110320_AAAVLR benson_n_Page_083.jp2
b4a05aadb1982dcd295c5929334d15c2
537ebc3a648fbd64d6df0a8d01e780fc1e3dea91
666220 F20110320_AAAVMF benson_n_Page_107.jp2
31fe2f09e53e31d8438c8cb460fbd776
ae7394eca7195d22c5ac5c2e4728817c253cad65
106732 F20110320_AAAVLS benson_n_Page_085.jp2
bcd734750374ade8571563efa97699e3
021ed03523bdf67167f7b91a9a1bf47ebe5663aa
108237 F20110320_AAAVMG benson_n_Page_109.jp2
f33ce789720de64ad56c35248688594b
8cb02663280365c4b6921655e584242a8247518f
109055 F20110320_AAAVLT benson_n_Page_087.jp2
1fdddb28a94508ad02a6d335b552f523
d90c8f9e659456d98a294df4641d8f46a09f2df4
108744 F20110320_AAAVMH benson_n_Page_114.jp2
94a7d5383a2912898185f3edbfbdd1d9
a87044bb4376a4541302cc33160a130ff96158ab
106795 F20110320_AAAVLU benson_n_Page_089.jp2
3536302369db2f638c62acbebab2e03a
6ab0ef4845176ec3e601861134a274a3dbaba651
291753 F20110320_AAAVMI benson_n_Page_117.jp2
ee966beba0c6fd869bb5de3e9d5413b6
16777eda73e43b45c713a335300f31a07fb58d5a
108664 F20110320_AAAVLV benson_n_Page_090.jp2
6c299c42684dd347a0aa7337924be288
082bd9490bbe2f76c141c2da3f6a7bc3e83cd0c6
409726 F20110320_AAAVMJ benson_n_Page_118.jp2
0a1eb868010809c4ed37d622b13fe315
c927dddee59ce68239e659041eedcf3262f5cb27
71925 F20110320_AAAVLW benson_n_Page_091.jp2
fd014baddd564d3b9f4338d30eade040
b43bb43c3c1334f323f3c0ff239b16621665f6d1
407703 F20110320_AAAVMK benson_n_Page_119.jp2
58eb29b6e5474c7d13695f119a361691
e6cece3a61d2b608ce7f467f1eedc1149a82d490
86074 F20110320_AAAVLX benson_n_Page_092.jp2
a1b9c8ef53317b3509482a7fd944fc24
9b2bcf614baf3e03c251fabd993eea6d3621096e
95510 F20110320_AAAVML benson_n_Page_123.jp2
cd3b07a85218fa7cc792e71204b3b05d
844c524afd9c3d695ef999304cffd993200a61c5
747043 F20110320_AAAVLY benson_n_Page_093.jp2
012936d9b14310d06c9ecb716ee0e800
03a571a00bd8f6021ccda25a0e831c6aba198bc9
1053954 F20110320_AAAVNA benson_n_Page_011.tif
e84e2df2320522604cbfe3d36b47d3d1
352ef99805488a0ad9140b8fac92f314073e2ed5
601879 F20110320_AAAVMM benson_n_Page_126.jp2
0735bd858fe7552e64306463d6a835d7
9f458a4300161a65e2a08483ae1e3104124c8bdb
55530 F20110320_AAAVLZ benson_n_Page_094.jp2
7812f9f1ed514cbe74eb104247e1475f
2dca136204860232e5b6d5dd344a18055555a057
F20110320_AAAVNB benson_n_Page_012.tif
105ea40d1e2e7428346408ffd8444cd8
47c33ef9db929e58d4d99fef4655242bc5c3c42e
524095 F20110320_AAAVMN benson_n_Page_127.jp2
086c60a3844a0ca94fc5a30881324b15
f915f49f055cffbd1eae0cb4a8b6803e5633601e
F20110320_AAAVNC benson_n_Page_014.tif
ebc544bf129c43ffb2c1f867f7a5cd89
8f503fa9b0e2204b7c1ef61032b5c05425005a68
519955 F20110320_AAAVMO benson_n_Page_128.jp2
c2f7a8b2f3037d4b045d95f6aac15e90
5a164256c1daa46fac8fc2d9c93979ebc62bba58
F20110320_AAAVND benson_n_Page_015.tif
e35c7caf9a7ffab3c8460c6372478587
154853b26cef3489ff54b68264e5a61adba38cca
737184 F20110320_AAAVMP benson_n_Page_130.jp2
2cc1a96a8ff7a4120b8e4a33388965bf
7e1c4762e1813b625eeaf8e5a5bf27ed381dbc7d
F20110320_AAAVNE benson_n_Page_016.tif
bb52b32fa369512958c3227337db87d4
d4c6f6beabfd288d296ffd36c3f46d0aea0f680c
300986 F20110320_AAAVMQ benson_n_Page_131.jp2
ea6aadeb54c6ab03f61f08ece9b8a94e
e910f27d637dd466f530146ced71886eef4cf79a
F20110320_AAAVNF benson_n_Page_017.tif
6c04cb863964ba9a993569fae95d0c98
b7ab638426d64d75e6674279ab9acdaef53e0172
134861 F20110320_AAAVMR benson_n_Page_138.jp2
da99694393edf0b2ff9fd073e29ff269
372d1128cc6c6bdb0ef12e9466e39807628ea073
F20110320_AAAVNG benson_n_Page_022.tif
8f3f93a71e4f20b572e8ef5966d3b184
d39498f171cce92279599e32de14269731ad1bfc
137331 F20110320_AAAVMS benson_n_Page_139.jp2
9a7aeb52adab7d5f029a9ead1f63a381
204c48dce43da68ae45a77be10ccd9832ec9c784
F20110320_AAAVNH benson_n_Page_023.tif
7d9cb22d1ac42158b967449aad7928e4
bb994477ffeaaef5e0d4ebb21447a0f71f2545d2
133863 F20110320_AAAVMT benson_n_Page_140.jp2
609b18f30cfa2010b2b34738f50cb705
6faeea8ba8e1c50a3b9000bf502555cf542c2cda
F20110320_AAAVNI benson_n_Page_025.tif
ee4a6280275d5f77ea3f0ff92a98ce06
2b58529ba005425f590c7bcb36349019abcad19f
143446 F20110320_AAAVMU benson_n_Page_141.jp2
b014ae456b2edc10043a785701054c69
aeefee5fa5986976e15866de35d18535da9ff1f9
F20110320_AAAVNJ benson_n_Page_026.tif
5b03ec6558cbc1e13b156b3cdc76173e
49abd227f256c05a0a5220a7524c15b85ccb5248
25271604 F20110320_AAAVMV benson_n_Page_004.tif
b295288ef08e19f864253770bdb0264e
a3a49650c1fffba262763ee6b9faf012ba1c5008
F20110320_AAAVNK benson_n_Page_027.tif
38924a705098cb2f02f49c987f4df17d
989a0c8f34e325cf126f424bf913d39e41eba314
F20110320_AAAVMW benson_n_Page_006.tif
d0c6252b4c9d26559448d4f378f6aeaa
240d4c8ff6deba9a47cf079edf3349c4f6622131
8423998 F20110320_AAAVNL benson_n_Page_033.tif
879b2ae54a4ede10bbd631710cba6709
0d52f249438e5adbc27ca82b48ee1ccfa4b12c63
F20110320_AAAVMX benson_n_Page_008.tif
a043a0e7e2ed0376478328cc625e8a33
e969ba361da60d16bc66f7fedcc84b4044d7217d
F20110320_AAAVOA benson_n_Page_061.tif
aebc2b3e6462f08a09a3f483db852b84
59c981436652741381d37159e0690c088b8cbc3d
F20110320_AAAVNM benson_n_Page_037.tif
9b499368e86ed5f4d11d509ba1e0a7fa
c73575478c1f5f5c445bece10ed7fe0921d8c924
F20110320_AAAVMY benson_n_Page_009.tif
83c0a65c97be14bc9e9a09130c66c8c6
3508a9cd183a0b4c83c23c2d4e973c653154a58d
F20110320_AAAVOB benson_n_Page_062.tif
9c1224f56f6af25fb9eafd05cecdeb9a
6ad58775b2897f443da21a3b3d89c71c5241abb7
F20110320_AAAVNN benson_n_Page_038.tif
d22e85d1f9cad550c78e3801c1a310d0
0b91b501bcd8786e9e0305848591b561141cf9a4
F20110320_AAAVMZ benson_n_Page_010.tif
e1a23b48eccba333f3b502fae85d2df5
77b2e53a8877ad72102b610fde6c9c8e915f8618
F20110320_AAAVOC benson_n_Page_063.tif
2b88cbc3762214e2e9462f939c2a9945
117acc916d4a2c04b785d5961daa6f931ee3ba42
F20110320_AAAVNO benson_n_Page_039.tif
161a790668e59b3b508dcf95f43fa8a2
0e2652eb25013bf998f804d1097155e8b7a5c1c5
F20110320_AAAVOD benson_n_Page_066.tif
07b0fdf8f2be15178167b893ded5b666
0aac7c4426aaf5af748c5d1f44c01e85aa7409f5
F20110320_AAAVNP benson_n_Page_040.tif
ccd620de3282fc6f8875cbf4da642431
1e4190bd588dc58f9e5a09345eed11633bf82fcf
F20110320_AAAVOE benson_n_Page_071.tif
1739046e84e70c6a0b48ae8f99e95688
ddac22d44695ba7ed917039de554540c1fc9b2ec
F20110320_AAAVNQ benson_n_Page_042.tif
15649f285da5c02baa72777963968982
8006b46d4f656c4bb62f2e3bcd8b3e7d5ff884b8
F20110320_AAAVOF benson_n_Page_072.tif
b4741aa9100b0c02d03cdfb1ab5f753b
456b0983f736a69f0ae4a334f50814da9fbda184
F20110320_AAAVNR benson_n_Page_043.tif
63abf05ebd2a4b1d56b15801c99256a7
65ec65332888fa579571c1a5179d25047c620f61
F20110320_AAAVOG benson_n_Page_077.tif
d127b3da77d457e4982ec2758c2a0ecd
653d62f49e13d55a72b87e0d67ecba15d07c93f8
F20110320_AAAVNS benson_n_Page_044.tif
6b9b57f1d68b7440880e88f7624978a5
ad078670b3f3138fe8b64ba33148e029107b9026
F20110320_AAAVOH benson_n_Page_079.tif
4391b4e9d06d537bbddf9085bad65761
4c40fed72e5391fd795ff9a131e6babc9a46aae0
F20110320_AAAVNT benson_n_Page_048.tif
c026c5c743e35d0994639e4b7307655e
8c0e67a324dd1f23c9ee679b896b726a7bbc665e
F20110320_AAAVOI benson_n_Page_081.tif
5da6e6e6bc8e62e105f4dac454cd8deb
61a3df976fa540be08842aaa9d10b8130912b5c6
F20110320_AAAVNU benson_n_Page_050.tif
b26d7ea78f88e97941e0c50064c2b832
59b24c59f7473096fe874be58c12b69cf9a8faa9
F20110320_AAAVOJ benson_n_Page_083.tif
9f141622099db66bdc031b304766baf6
74e90bbb49e206d1039e72d461115fa625dec053
F20110320_AAAVNV benson_n_Page_053.tif
0e0c0de7d6d35f5bc74a151368e899ce
6a264060c307865c490e25f93cb6b8730c2456ec
F20110320_AAAVOK benson_n_Page_084.tif
1dcb6e564cfe8bf486c9cf67e6412772
363b491a274aa2b5bb40669375678f928d9da222
F20110320_AAAVNW benson_n_Page_054.tif
b4ee3e1a0c15effab085c377d8e8f5c1
567a037b264c690002270b2714b18acbba0f041e
F20110320_AAAVOL benson_n_Page_086.tif
53048db640280e6a61675f1895bddba1
8de956900c02342000f1cdbc68ef2c9face5b575
F20110320_AAAVNX benson_n_Page_056.tif
e211f1258fe3d7a40fa251f078d9a135
b37d0913854b40ae120a56a15c4e70bfde01d343
F20110320_AAAVOM benson_n_Page_090.tif
87c46739abaffe2368886262ac08e9b5
4cf94d0d7696a4b8b22b203cf62ad8b97cd7f7ff
F20110320_AAAVNY benson_n_Page_058.tif
81b4d9b3c565c1d8d1265117e1e87f03
38bd44892369aa1cc4cdf3aa449ebade63f17680
F20110320_AAAVPA benson_n_Page_114.tif
27a5a911fa7647a19c3d2765c4e55342
f8d49bf446928945a31024899030fa98cae39ebc
F20110320_AAAVON benson_n_Page_092.tif
659e9cc4ce807df517706646549193a5
8e64d8c712ea86a3996b7cc6a38d5158199f66d6
F20110320_AAAVNZ benson_n_Page_060.tif
40bb823d788c79b3ce6cfe8985b0140d
d561f57dd438702c6943a4b6e4abc37e8d2bb473
F20110320_AAAVPB benson_n_Page_116.tif
1d83c20be1c0014193a03ab58f90d06d
a61c1fde602c4888419f0cda070a039624a9980c
F20110320_AAAVOO benson_n_Page_093.tif
8045ba8648592102c7f33ea9a2c41b10
22b49c03b5f3b6a7513e2252fe5370f435ebfe7a
F20110320_AAAVPC benson_n_Page_120.tif
8654ea9737e421032ef5d6a75daa6265
78eb5a10dc9779bc6cecb9b9124d7f8a537a79a1
F20110320_AAAVOP benson_n_Page_094.tif
38e862f36aa4bc788d6ddb02d8cc2a1d
79b0a61f0327f38c220bdf7705a755876acb5993
F20110320_AAAVPD benson_n_Page_124.tif
708eccf751b4a985254f367541cd9c1d
d905c6ead7d92ae992b87f1f41fc4f995a67c0bf
F20110320_AAAVOQ benson_n_Page_095.tif
edf7c0d0b3f08daacbc7070c186ecaca
021b98ef3986d50123ce358fab500b7d716de909
F20110320_AAAVPE benson_n_Page_125.tif
8e6ac276e012cffd8e087d580b4b9474
e56406c9f88f3beef71d9008d6479a92c8c9a688
F20110320_AAAVOR benson_n_Page_096.tif
7b02889a75408633bd5a2e9bffcc56ae
d1e3e3c7e3c4bc5ada653c2ab0aba4ffc25c5aa4
F20110320_AAAVPF benson_n_Page_126.tif
9695295c08e8f5b4becfde29afeda863
dd29c59a9234e894a00d5032c9a79f3961198188
F20110320_AAAVPG benson_n_Page_127.tif
05d5eb4404a5d9f5692525007055cb63
0a0d95b0431ff5b5df1cfafc89ae627db906d580
F20110320_AAAVOS benson_n_Page_097.tif
9bc6daaff63543a34938f9cef9f7bb45
bc983015b900ec42cceba0ed323276b94d3ac2d9
F20110320_AAAVPH benson_n_Page_129.tif
fa0052225234340dfc1881d65ff6e7d2
6cb33a75b6e72c7d47d3a51d60ae3c142eb80e48
F20110320_AAAVOT benson_n_Page_098.tif
a89e1a36fab3c8c2cc797095bac7e8cc
fd947c651194d3cdd079095dd75defebbbd5a8d7
F20110320_AAAVPI benson_n_Page_130.tif
b84e78638f416d262a4e5637a0083eda
d666d65753c8fa4c457eaf269d8651ccc75c90b6
F20110320_AAAVOU benson_n_Page_100.tif
6a821514a817569fb61653a252e6fd9e
c2005fc9b611f12f2d15306fc499d7c19d9110a4
F20110320_AAAVPJ benson_n_Page_131.tif
1f312545d0dfe135800fa040168d21a2
3cce8074fcf0ed8707de2efc20dd2df65d7ed6a7
F20110320_AAAVOV benson_n_Page_103.tif
b041d941aeffbace316bdb8d974a593b
8289319b48b606ae726a6dc814ee82357061b474
F20110320_AAAVPK benson_n_Page_132.tif
7eb8e37b9571225bbb3b19e22cfe7fa5
8c30bac7630636ea7da5b0facde05d14266a08bd
F20110320_AAAVOW benson_n_Page_104.tif
d66c9baa13d289186ef4bbda0aedd320
a28e3040f8ef0d3f97e644dda1672bc2b7ddf949
50774 F20110320_AAAVQA benson_n_Page_023.pro
942a59a20d9e8dd7eb7be9e09daed30f
d26479b8f884aff10064e795b01b5a3d201e621c
F20110320_AAAVPL benson_n_Page_134.tif
4eebc81859a98fccc2075d81d4e8d285
ba0d32b75817fd90f09cf5f8c085dc056fd37470
F20110320_AAAVOX benson_n_Page_108.tif
2c92c69ed305d1e813cdf76270673eba
886a681efb0aa74972bfa398645990f2a55a1d5d
F20110320_AAAVPM benson_n_Page_135.tif
3b24642650c721b3c5f651101a8b7418
e5474e1b0d92d9c572d8a58447f72cb53f54a11e
F20110320_AAAVOY benson_n_Page_109.tif
7d9b8a9ed9bd105089677799314669fa
f9cd47bb774dd6738dbed4335a4df45a9daa11cf
49682 F20110320_AAAVQB benson_n_Page_024.pro
98d75ee7d14adc4685a010259d0759b2
3331ca690520dc24d253250028296dd71627566a
F20110320_AAAVPN benson_n_Page_139.tif
5fab24ca0a66da645c6add5b1a1b8fbb
1e87be2c83981bcc9a04fdffcb2344874cb167f2
F20110320_AAAVOZ benson_n_Page_113.tif
d868340f09496377e30c82d53c8d167c
bc09067e371c7943a9e2740f793b923b3f8347b2
50687 F20110320_AAAVQC benson_n_Page_029.pro
e47cd74f435aad9fb654ac369f0992d3
f8f240aabf652f0f8fdde475e0cf3d21f32476b4
F20110320_AAAVPO benson_n_Page_141.tif
95236ab1180ea4eabcdf65b27fe395be
86178cf037e2fc6ea9853cd5c166f56e91bc4d2b
47652 F20110320_AAAVQD benson_n_Page_030.pro
a14296a26bd3873f7e7191cf62637def
e28611a9a993e0118c10c28905d6b517d119a256
1253 F20110320_AAAVPP benson_n_Page_002.pro
5dcc0d83b1613724c72fbc07f9d579a3
62f4e37946d4d053f413451753aa877bc90e92e5
47602 F20110320_AAAVQE benson_n_Page_031.pro
fd2db6b0956f900a8dcc8a44fc53d1f6
411730d05c0b656294fabc94004177cd4c9ba58f
83382 F20110320_AAAVPQ benson_n_Page_004.pro
07f737c68b4f1c794d48d4222267c467
df00e5e55f03ebe32e92cae4bbe0eac0fb8101c8
52693 F20110320_AAAVQF benson_n_Page_032.pro
b3686eb97cd0592ada5f0a54391a67d1
7f67ecde465bde49930d66a5b943ea0b4ce119e5
79164 F20110320_AAAVPR benson_n_Page_005.pro
e4f71a5906f81730b702a2607a7c0230
5e8e54045d96242d6b4877cc96702dabacef8250
49370 F20110320_AAAVQG benson_n_Page_034.pro
45e579930d94f65d5c94fb5e792b1898
a8f8a28bf6f5dd632adb0ec38a958f0a45a5ad0c
60619 F20110320_AAAVPS benson_n_Page_007.pro
b96f87716121304b5a6f3ce7841b40e9
d808eb9473ce45176e4fcc22a2a4ba15baf923c2
51737 F20110320_AAAVQH benson_n_Page_035.pro
2235f672dfde0f130974a9ed75a4af02
f760897273b02fe946cfa24d55b3bbae595c91c1
5190 F20110320_AAAVPT benson_n_Page_008.pro
10c576222d3b770b10c375bf67c7866d
7df8b772c48227666584d4ef894bf64e14e249a9
48142 F20110320_AAAVQI benson_n_Page_036.pro
888fd15c95835da212d334b086fe320f
2c25d88db63fec9531ab1c0fa3c685a8a3e58055
10773 F20110320_AAAVPU benson_n_Page_011.pro
508076f5ac494cf809595e649f917028
a60a60233faa6448fa50c08e61cc1fba3a1c2a47
51257 F20110320_AAAVQJ benson_n_Page_037.pro
d5b83e08a39a803a2f5a982199e1031f
a965d249ec69877ed2ff656c74b4a20dff89617f
42592 F20110320_AAAVPV benson_n_Page_012.pro
80065f9a9beac1bec07b0c8ff9b015aa
12975413e8ee1b84b741c5a29c9460259e0c665e
46535 F20110320_AAAVQK benson_n_Page_038.pro
0d703e171f07c057546db904eff24d53
0039f7bd7593fa20ea29481ac6094200893d9703
49976 F20110320_AAAVPW benson_n_Page_013.pro
0f58eb6b3332f89978689be6c73cff0b
1f1709f2e9fa1ca5d1e54733bf491b0730849021
51422 F20110320_AAAVQL benson_n_Page_039.pro
977d7ecd49e07952f74716cafe5b7320
68fd5184f3f9f06d6cacb47f92a7e155696803ac
48613 F20110320_AAAVPX benson_n_Page_017.pro
91d27a1a098a87535ccc63ee7a5760cd
9e39aac916cc424a5eb2bb7d675cf10b92f001f7
49818 F20110320_AAAVRA benson_n_Page_072.pro
f75296581d609008d37727b0f3aab334
110ef17087b4ebc08246d9ab6afd518b984398e3
48398 F20110320_AAAVQM benson_n_Page_040.pro
8513c670b0652110f0714f9d189f1bf5
9698a4b01849a751200dfb213aec759b8aa4626b
44236 F20110320_AAAVPY benson_n_Page_019.pro
473414dfb22675945c94a4356ff7ac80
6f2d63335c496b03e2db404668b9e08090dd2738
45357 F20110320_AAAVRB benson_n_Page_073.pro
93186bc716d02bae912c4003a880fde8
83c6a4c6670c19e0f7da1cd459b5a2a249641c50
45923 F20110320_AAAVQN benson_n_Page_041.pro
0c7bdc89a4f74bb4a471bed2a1c8eb88
592f627b49609968a73a9e9e4c5b0d2c4a86a93d
48788 F20110320_AAAVPZ benson_n_Page_022.pro
e4a7ef5bc39d37a612f1ba7c8d5763ef
e49fcb2c5e81b80aabd315801617a38cfd4d94b0
49163 F20110320_AAAVQO benson_n_Page_042.pro
baeefe01d2a16862e2544bb2d85b957f
a43110bf0e663990babe474f952c970a202b6291
44721 F20110320_AAAUOA benson_n_Page_004thm.jpg
e24dd8e8baa71373c6f969592477f571
a474e3c350c6e6e7a023befc2d733d225ec11da7
47935 F20110320_AAAVRC benson_n_Page_077.pro
99753283921f41b8c696528150922122
dfa0a3cd0e1238b2d001321fe0f97adef8a38aa5
52408 F20110320_AAAVQP benson_n_Page_046.pro
43e81e255e218604b5bdcdcc72ed7337
fcffff048a99b6532253aeb1ed82f55f294e3ec1
1887 F20110320_AAAUOB benson_n_Page_062.txt
0c6dae669740afa562e7b162c96848fd
3db313a831966ad40a13ba12ed3cdff68cc9fe1f
44382 F20110320_AAAVRD benson_n_Page_080.pro
b6de7868c07bb9089cccd48c33581187
9114b715809d652cebe6d52d0fffe626a0c6aba4
45431 F20110320_AAAVQQ benson_n_Page_047.pro
a928fb97146dab2641f8d42dc4a2b5a7
d887f8470a2a606ed2f21c2507f8286b2d539117
430 F20110320_AAAUOC benson_n_Page_011.txt
d1819212ee451959483457d2d19800d0
181ecada19a1a6619762ed9c0413e59e5a017bb0
50176 F20110320_AAAVRE benson_n_Page_083.pro
326adbd7a473df4e06fdc43956787995
c495a9abbb676ab8561db8143bd9c9c9aefb4332
50967 F20110320_AAAVQR benson_n_Page_051.pro
4e0bf2c81ae767693c1a8a581605b256
3a2642b7977ad6e5300351cb9340c8ec4e303bcd
1514 F20110320_AAAUOD benson_n_Page_116.txt
8be3ffd8702046ed9fa8e8299b0917a6
810d1fa4b015693443bab448f102effa59f9ba3e
48969 F20110320_AAAVRF benson_n_Page_085.pro
21794177920ab57aef6167e8ea6da802
6272fbf86554dc2db0fb9ee920058c31e729462f
74761 F20110320_AAAUNQ benson_n_Page_056.QC.jpg
8bb4fb33696221f76bc675da01dd524e
5698a5af94f35f490a98331d53e5e956936956e1
47425 F20110320_AAAVQS benson_n_Page_055.pro
79293c06209afd5225838fc5c55d7c4a
07bc2015b7441e8a3797b0f3182759737fd1d25d
108972 F20110320_AAAUOE benson_n_Page_068.jp2
a53c2be4efe1592eb53f7412a063a49f
b0e38bfd2b8c5bbb41c8d83672cc79a621fdd25a
51684 F20110320_AAAVRG benson_n_Page_086.pro
51540bacebd55595350ee5fe43aade56
43c90622ece9a5e1cacabf4082f594afb3f4e850
44947 F20110320_AAAUNR benson_n_Page_130.pro
81c8ccab49bf369bf47ae718adba8718
ef1b90e57f244eaf0c3c81d309adf0aaf6ed843d
48605 F20110320_AAAVQT benson_n_Page_060.pro
1993268ea0c1c4d3fd2e2b4bcb5407e9
dfd6b35adb9f8f793d8200a05bbf6e6a024eed21
88495 F20110320_AAAUOF benson_n_Page_133.QC.jpg
62dd1f20b0f64a6bf13879cf89e104ac
057961079ea5660b03ef548f6d6bf99219442a51
49458 F20110320_AAAVRH benson_n_Page_089.pro
521a13a3c37481c2d0c2497c92364c54
a5b8dcd977d442168c800672fdc6080c397364c9
85476 F20110320_AAAUNS benson_n_Page_139.QC.jpg
621d17737569eff8989e256f8d90451a
fff81d2f4aefc97e83b85d0f36bf5ab431d53b7c
47587 F20110320_AAAVQU benson_n_Page_062.pro
4c82c45c24ac36aa777403d063319fcd
4db0dab25c6280ddd9bf6fbda044f2cf45df3844
81320 F20110320_AAAUOG benson_n_Page_026.QC.jpg
8827e24f6b4910b622353603b73043aa
a38bb1de14d900043777dae0d1ecbfb818a18050
31973 F20110320_AAAVRI benson_n_Page_091.pro
83b6c517d2b02bbecf717b88f0c37365
561193619ee923bcd14a587725739cb608c2d58a
F20110320_AAAUNT benson_n_Page_118.tif
f1989ff99ffb2e6dedf2600c9e1fb4c5
ada935dc4135cb8f344fb24b384aa6a5f5ea1aa3
51980 F20110320_AAAVQV benson_n_Page_064.pro
4a58973dcd83c575f754227d01c1e96b
060ef34328a2eadf9336fc4f18f5b1c5394a219d
48609 F20110320_AAAUOH benson_n_Page_132.pro
8110548ab66ded820c3be7969b8ce86c
2de2889a85c8ebde1b7d40b647136ab0d5946ef4
19248 F20110320_AAAVRJ benson_n_Page_095.pro
9711da523d19ab234e66ecd16e229cf8
b68b730b8f6e6df5bc801c49680c62ee9acf8399
32506 F20110320_AAAUNU benson_n_Page_101thm.jpg
25ea1ab9def9ab74343d33789f613252
cbf7a6017ffd1d965f3f5a258acb9edf6474ca44
48459 F20110320_AAAVQW benson_n_Page_065.pro
5c8631aa79af45ad6d6e4d7b573f33df
002e84fddfd237f0b87910f977842c346d8e6e51
1051972 F20110320_AAAUOI benson_n_Page_052.jp2
dc632b180498a28afd1904034b52f1f6
84637ecfb217517abdc57b53df30cd54bc532504
10540 F20110320_AAAVRK benson_n_Page_097.pro
272113cfea73ed8f79fb6c8ae524e9a4
b71d231c7bc5ae4f357a2842cf6a2ead27b2302c
29731 F20110320_AAAVSA benson_n_Page_126.pro
68d849c002c780fc7fa818bad924b11f
24a488df2593d032dd20d1ea55c1069f61251b48
F20110320_AAAUNV benson_n_Page_076.tif
9a04c89185db0078f6d93f9976b6b56f
648e1b99bc3a7448f26e8f0c19180bf55d4e2bf9
48382 F20110320_AAAVQX benson_n_Page_067.pro
8d50dc7f8eab82ad4e5027fdb0bb3875
80dd82088280ed470329054ae2271fa12782080d
1993 F20110320_AAAUOJ benson_n_Page_090.txt
0bd5e426b06cd2b32db625fa3b392197
6cb2fd68e37b7eec1d4e7daa893ae8e8fc0688db
27490 F20110320_AAAVRL benson_n_Page_098.pro
024c6d05b2363f66109aeb7e67c3d06d
83514f429921bfe127c179d7fdb12d14dba4052c
32936 F20110320_AAAVSB benson_n_Page_127.pro
9f60891456182fcd00588810e7583fe5
69161334257224c4fa8ee139c0ced44bfab05e6d
33621 F20110320_AAAUNW benson_n_Page_118.pro
39199e5a8b492d709243987848692205
e5b00e7d270cc1cba3340b80b38418faef030f5d
49210 F20110320_AAAVQY benson_n_Page_068.pro
c4b03c0e079875a9a8e0cb2683e6f668
a205643b93ef3c6263ad64ad3765891b7cb65918
25664 F20110320_AAAUOK benson_n_Page_026thm.jpg
cbb19d2cab3041bbe8c75617d288c9af
10c7f4f587f9b69a664c8ab5937a14aa37673951
46566 F20110320_AAAVRM benson_n_Page_099.pro
478b7adce77aa8a46853e4e2f03f6b9e
2931c5cd0b40be74ad24db870472e94b51732289
32192 F20110320_AAAVSC benson_n_Page_128.pro
c803e8dd7cb009e8068204f6b2303f67
78617419819894b8424eff1e1236e4b0ca7b4744
1995 F20110320_AAAUNX benson_n_Page_016.txt
24829f2ae2351b2e7cadb2a58f64b54d
a8f1bee3fdb5179cb3252687f551a1a741fabc60
47341 F20110320_AAAVQZ benson_n_Page_069.pro
575c16b3cbaf1ee7341bb99ee614e205
2d60c706bd5d1104543fe96ec5a72a21ca74536b
23382 F20110320_AAAUPA benson_n_Page_110thm.jpg
4b2c63f71c8f2e3f73455e169288d14d
9b1050cefe23179403fefe38d679a3e6a2f58bff
80281 F20110320_AAAUOL benson_n_Page_023.QC.jpg
bbdc58214f90afc74761d649e476fa1f
4a83788a1fdf548e1c240f0cda3c4a91bf1de750
51531 F20110320_AAAVRN benson_n_Page_101.pro
b9c7ea97385bdffc827366c0fcb716d0
0d10961a95e8fc8050ef648569d899aaca8b23eb
25563 F20110320_AAAUNY benson_n_Page_046thm.jpg
1224f9f41f80f0c57080e04c8a4d6d0e
5e743839a77e2b9b2304500d58db2f1c979416f9
1766 F20110320_AAAUOM benson_n_Page_012.txt
08033d93e0293942605ede6763b85d31
d94f2d6fb7bafedc916a222eeb1d214a9a31b9ae
45363 F20110320_AAAVRO benson_n_Page_102.pro
8dea2e37724d12353f74a6f9ae361416
35036abee620e1b65e2a5a120a9428efdba2a67b
39608 F20110320_AAAVSD benson_n_Page_129.pro
1ca17f8712739e4a509432e43b1fe962
7feea934558ad2f9b5cae51bbeede933984840e8
215443 F20110320_AAAUNZ benson_n_Page_064.jpg
b3c67b2525ab0568e5b8fb12e4f4c51d
fae596bfb29728c60ab8e9e7dff2df33b1e0db61
F20110320_AAAUPB benson_n_Page_105.tif
aaec6797fe84b198e11f8a69fd3a3ad5
4fcb474fdb469525aefd860ba3e0e17fbd479aab
38849 F20110320_AAAUON benson_n_Page_092.pro
5dc867bed908ae631690aacf3cb97963
345ac617230199303c45938fba48850fc1010288
46290 F20110320_AAAVRP benson_n_Page_103.pro
d0d7302dcc91e0417eb43a91618b2190
4909c8e45dd7aa88c0a597490780af03b301e64e
18107 F20110320_AAAVSE benson_n_Page_131.pro
79c34d803f3fd3da4ff576b60205091f
d203366083d229d4886f6f4a4ff5155c8be32b07
50956 F20110320_AAAUPC benson_n_Page_025.pro
155e581ab878e99f0b4788840778024d
033bbe3a104e79ce38987eb923786a015a949864
110233 F20110320_AAAUOO benson_n_Page_025.jp2
826b65bcb6173e71c68e7cc8f76b802c
2e5b9d702eaa4c4caa2904fe7b1cc336f5726311
49152 F20110320_AAAVRQ benson_n_Page_104.pro
80063ed5277ac653ae381ee86265de21
aed1ab59e07dc53672c6f955da770a24c33de0a2
66095 F20110320_AAAVSF benson_n_Page_133.pro
586654f95fd310f14a7ddb418438b2d6
cf78eb820c7a5fa894b997b8e41838880e4ae657
177552 F20110320_AAAUPD benson_n_Page_115.jpg
89f68aa29d8ebd1aaf92c46259a0271b
d7189d3a0dbaafbba61a6104693b52f43f2c2bdb
890 F20110320_AAAUOP benson_n_Page_009.txt
cb4d977ae38f69fd236a0a4b517d1450
38eb0ce416cce2f6bf203d975ce459af2e4e0fab
50211 F20110320_AAAVRR benson_n_Page_109.pro
1c33464c77ed52e47f498a49279edde7
0544eb0286a41006d12b7575f801a137fe0bf26f
63408 F20110320_AAAVSG benson_n_Page_135.pro
1da94bd17731aca5fd0410d85c261f48
945955cc84ecabf0bf5dcc8dd8d7769efc3e6631
49133 F20110320_AAAUPE benson_n_Page_049.pro
48ac9ad4729f89997b258760304625e2
71c8cdeded263fbfa8a4ae2558b55c8d65766667
F20110320_AAAUOQ benson_n_Page_133.tif
c9fb8bffa762d4b7d826f4edf5a20631
69eca43f2acd611a440184da71dee50aebf54734
47072 F20110320_AAAVRS benson_n_Page_110.pro
2b12ea2f6c8cbd570215ddabbb15ce2e
a5f45b8fe0d9526108e0f0a6f362857e410bcd0b
55680 F20110320_AAAVSH benson_n_Page_137.pro
0fccc3139c537f4e63af7f1cbe27dc99
66ed707498cda67b84b0cb73b7a951c98cd68a70
F20110320_AAAUPF benson_n_Page_121.tif
2ddad84ebfbe2ea199061856996d1046
e4cedbd07d34eed38bd7340d82a8e55a51fec7c0
40939 F20110320_AAAUOR benson_n_Page_108.pro
f511166ea76662eda69e87a72d00cafc
3d2443ff3a3e6704225e3bd1776ea98b467ef13f
45807 F20110320_AAAVRT benson_n_Page_111.pro
8fec15389fd84a514ef7d4d3323013c0
50f0ca9e4c6bb5eb7a7f8194bfbef971de18fc4f
62889 F20110320_AAAVSI benson_n_Page_139.pro
0da61060ff9eb895c6da178587855bf8
d7dc64015ee41bc0f5468d418a2c348931e4b7ac
51512 F20110320_AAAUPG benson_n_Page_044.pro
70aec2894e187cc94839472c937f9408
652e68da3fd9c09a1957b5eb81ef54378ac156a6
51689 F20110320_AAAUOS benson_n_Page_033.pro
e3adaa523975310554d04937329398d3
e29bad2286440ae048677e19585dcd856f32ee4a
51060 F20110320_AAAVRU benson_n_Page_113.pro
340b9fb89f973e03c231a08c711ea3d0
94315257be66ead42517017eac0575ae0de7abde
66947 F20110320_AAAVSJ benson_n_Page_141.pro
ef730ea79afdcbd713b799fac0298c2f
f88b171cd59f1a00a1bdeebbd7d6bc3328462840
126327 F20110320_AAAUPH benson_n_Page_134.jp2
7e4e5c6a1449a063048daf31eefe6c7c
b50a5f2d4fe592d18ba9c8d677a5a2817ee0d48f
2015 F20110320_AAAUOT benson_n_Page_129.txt
910543f68530d69d6638ddca39cc583b
41e860f27af2d128c0d86746a5e90686933d403f
49573 F20110320_AAAVRV benson_n_Page_114.pro
851889d8d0ba8ddf1cc802a8bd97209c
b77f8cc22fff888817b97ef63cee423c5da25cc7
42727 F20110320_AAAVSK benson_n_Page_142.pro
fa29de79aee238b36e7d3a6a68a93dd1
de900e99a03ee84a5b9785ef95272fc2f524a72d
41139 F20110320_AAAVRW benson_n_Page_115.pro
ed4a1bc8bdd91409a610209b8e3d42c6
9c274f7d2ff2582d0eef6a1bda997b362eabdc2e
125508 F20110320_AAAUPI benson_n_Page_136.jp2
fce18c2aa47cac2dc35cf52f5db04863
12d4bc0d524f044757dac625cd8721d14d2cff78
F20110320_AAAUOU benson_n_Page_073.tif
0737b894e203dc1744fa1e8a0cf6f629
a41477959d0841ea6bfcb0b404635fddee7b2232
1807 F20110320_AAAVTA benson_n_Page_047.txt
6448cf7d759ac0ae5545e3e7e54e79d9
ddccf57acee7b6c2c31561155e2cde7b83a6efbe
2252 F20110320_AAAVSL benson_n_Page_006.txt
b49fdc3b915b4fcc980f2b6f139add21
9689fc2f259d22ab36efd1c19b44488e590c64de
33414 F20110320_AAAVRX benson_n_Page_120.pro
c22803d2c1b6d57df16b3fd431698999
42fac9aa4a6076527960552d8fe4686e8d00a631
212460 F20110320_AAAUPJ benson_n_Page_025.jpg
07e4363b7436f14b2dcbc3a024adc7bd
295731e20edd9a3aa005f19105f49510ef40b494
24666 F20110320_AAAUOV benson_n_Page_045thm.jpg
0bde8a5c94a740bce8e96803ec120b47
e0657127fa9954a73033fdbf6dd05e895474f355
1947 F20110320_AAAVTB benson_n_Page_048.txt
a543a1e8f7a5103734901c47f364c05b
58625c936877a806d4ab8e4116fda18c32bbda6b
1730 F20110320_AAAVSM benson_n_Page_010.txt
ac1715de3fc3a67160e96bff9f5e34a5
83ec3e1890b36e4cf00f1617cdaf0a0070856f87
47177 F20110320_AAAVRY benson_n_Page_123.pro
51cae77d015481f50389733fa628ae44
c0a12988c49869ddb82f277a8784dc3e78dcf6e8
75011 F20110320_AAAUPK benson_n_Page_022.QC.jpg
b254ef7df54ae33c6fd02c0b0a28eb0a
7703a773606a7646361af1c8ef073a4bc0e62ffe
100389 F20110320_AAAUOW benson_n_Page_096.jp2
c92e2d79a43b56a487d99ca56bc3b9a1
7854b9577ae5982de3ed96ad23ae8d42d8baf6e0
1950 F20110320_AAAVTC benson_n_Page_049.txt
f7be462ebea732f9bd92b05c27ba2342
6b5be2f2e4d50860600e9f4fd4740a818d6d928c
2017 F20110320_AAAVSN benson_n_Page_014.txt
6ff6af08aaa4732fea9aeb0a37c87769
a9735e810cbe37c33222d2b7743acd85fa175392
53303 F20110320_AAAVRZ benson_n_Page_125.pro
c472ad24435aac52acd303153dec9bf0
d9d355b7e7f880418377c7e36b0c987eb2494f7b
F20110320_AAAUQA benson_n_Page_057.tif
553604684626fb3c5b88f0df1e0fb1ac
737707d0a0a245e4ca4478112ab323819db5a9d2
103701 F20110320_AAAUPL benson_n_Page_110.jp2
54e319ef9990bbdcc94e5b0df05b5db6
28c49640c930d5b9831d9fb222cbdb4f8924ffeb
51845 F20110320_AAAUOX benson_n_Page_070.pro
1f8ce89d74783d5fbc35dd0dd9576f6c
347cbd0a39995b74ae00bf43cd2537135331a5a9
2003 F20110320_AAAVTD benson_n_Page_051.txt
6748197dba0d85393c53c26ab0a243b9
9f84eb74083540081dfdcde66a24f86b8ea1f2f0
1790 F20110320_AAAVSO benson_n_Page_015.txt
a0eb8cfd7ae2e98d552b9b0477436408
7f97f3a3efb8cb9bd609b22bd24d2d0b969644c2
25411 F20110320_AAAUQB benson_n_Page_113thm.jpg
d701a5431660869e77d45687d0ea6b1e
18dcfc2479b3cf60c71c10b49a14931e13e467dd
1077 F20110320_AAAUPM benson_n_Page_117.txt
ddf1af0dd69baf022a2d1b872e478dc3
ce8f93b2d342f1a2db5ad34908794653d525b398
77403 F20110320_AAAUOY benson_n_Page_060.QC.jpg
e490182c73a7dff00b0e666207c5521c
028f5fa18143bb960e63dc9c3658c8605879ad6c
1750 F20110320_AAAVSP benson_n_Page_019.txt
32078cb4894050b5abce32cd932c9e36
26dc8f9ee5cc715dee557a6ee23243ef81d1de13
61096 F20110320_AAAUPN benson_n_Page_010.QC.jpg
dd43a5f9d519a031122765488843496b
5b7c2c2ab05c8fb196760d4d4d83c58a788460bc
201202 F20110320_AAAUOZ benson_n_Page_085.jpg
57b9de14f907a9ae94f2328e73582a3e
1a85afdcac75d4740fc4f766a84b70794e55409b
2560 F20110320_AAAVTE benson_n_Page_052.txt
45e5a7804995b6604cd61dc782ef82a0
98a47729c7317bd1f4e280d967a0f2a409cb4cd5
1938 F20110320_AAAVSQ benson_n_Page_022.txt
1a900ba98f89652e80f419ef9235c72a
63de60b1a5bf4a914b8b25158a98a7ddd962ceb5
186871 F20110320_AAAUQC benson_n_Page_018.jpg
9f76344a5eee1971ff08cde0fdb495d1
3bcac572e35e413b13610b5821e6e3a29b970aa3
515 F20110320_AAAUPO benson_n_Page_001.txt
8f88deb49752186140a0ea6fc5f103f8
1257d027ea054def9cdcdbc17f35b9e29cf1e7bc
2051 F20110320_AAAVTF benson_n_Page_053.txt
77f97d2c19e1181e7bbf9d72c16b01e0
c5f3c642626cfa549506238084e282901cc22e25
2006 F20110320_AAAVSR benson_n_Page_023.txt
ce1047ba58f0330ceb7bd799932d317f
fcbbcfb873d897734fab2dfe7368b9548e9013ad
111302 F20110320_AAAUQD benson_n_Page_046.jp2
0d1639d30baf3c034a5e8dd464868140
4a243093f0d91139b4dc75b4eae6b021e5f4f34f
F20110320_AAAUPP benson_n_Page_137.tif
90c9e5103686b6829f10e6c8429ec837
df690b0254e100c81a39db010b45f6e81fa01d7d
1872 F20110320_AAAVTG benson_n_Page_055.txt
b8b1ac530cc0578d963a255448ba9440
6d53362eb508c87e0ef18997c277c8cbf3afe6d5
1954 F20110320_AAAVSS benson_n_Page_024.txt
a0ca9a90bffd123e98dc3b8a5a0cc600
4c47991451d1b0f4db4ca3959d8e30d8c16519b8
22536 F20110320_AAAUPQ benson_n_Page_073thm.jpg
61378568c915642e27702188a47cffdb
0abc359b34936bef5d2da9dd4d45482a43b65084
192621 F20110320_AAAUQE benson_n_Page_077.jpg
d7c94aa535dee04cfa30b8fa94c88116
c6fc59da230afd5d68411f29804f40525412b592
1922 F20110320_AAAVTH benson_n_Page_056.txt
6321e93b499c239db9f1f9ae094ad1c1
32c67e5f4cce7dd6f7b48def5347e19d09a974cb
2057 F20110320_AAAVST benson_n_Page_026.txt
9a1d66f6f5e816acbf108d0477f989a7
f94529617a4146a91914cda9016447eb651d563e
61853 F20110320_AAAUPR benson_n_Page_140.pro
657ab9933ba6735543989853b5628a16
70723b12bf711f0a86aaf4dcc5bc30a87aff9e75
103831 F20110320_AAAUQF benson_n_Page_036.jp2
f8e98fb9a64b8044f5ad8fefabbb4cf0
28ec39eb73ea8a3bd44fce8859b7877b7946cdb0
1736 F20110320_AAAVTI benson_n_Page_057.txt
9dd2f168f2273b375c08bb56c54310dd
7f5a423ec17cc246708e5f84bbbbd3b244fe3b53
2049 F20110320_AAAVSU benson_n_Page_027.txt
3e3f05f282768ea0fc725df0bb5e3075
326ab993f1282782e8fd7ff5ba55fe989eb9969f
18208 F20110320_AAAUPS benson_n_Page_095thm.jpg
83dc547c14f9267765e48e493893a5fa
0507734a19ba5cb3761975df54d5f85c1ecc5064
71092 F20110320_AAAUQG benson_n_Page_099.QC.jpg
fc36d8b5e2b96bd6e1cf8475c1620eff
c3c1f48ac5a49eb1be7d3b6c12b2aedb33b87bcd
1897 F20110320_AAAVTJ benson_n_Page_058.txt
2710fe5d7cb5efec0f2d0198ea23e241
3cb3df7b47e48c9ccd5796643ec1424b57586fad
1972 F20110320_AAAVSV benson_n_Page_028.txt
563369038b4fc78294691e8a4d7824f3
2734d6da81e0255061ab22b9c7867b985776c021
F20110320_AAAUPT benson_n_Page_005.tif
b3333a802a7a21fe483df484ba0474a8
7ba688952c1110802dc11a05dd182b09265d032a
75218 F20110320_AAAUQH benson_n_Page_110.QC.jpg
28d46b77cb39372f7543139e607bbad5
e816124a0abef882698bf89c66d84d099cb8c52d
1861 F20110320_AAAVTK benson_n_Page_061.txt
24c27848ac462416ebdda26e01a4547f
e109ec881eb68ae5158baf17879039bdbf817efa
F20110320_AAAVSW benson_n_Page_029.txt
46c7f1dd4491c86c599c10127ab390d0
7434a3554fa4d10a7ffd5dbf7857d422f680a82a
58076 F20110320_AAAUPU benson_n_Page_136.pro
017e49f825823d2c07e4d25886cfa864
6c495a505b95c42ffa05932bf8b1c42dd86f620f
27155 F20110320_AAAUQI benson_n_Page_130thm.jpg
0330ad50be90885c9ea60f62242c2c7c
9b26e8dcfcf85a6036df74ee8b6a10e0faf8966b
1952 F20110320_AAAVUA benson_n_Page_088.txt
1363d505b730ca41ff7bd5ff53e9b6ee
6b45d8f00c739e20930ca1f4d1abecc51a88ea6a
1776 F20110320_AAAVTL benson_n_Page_066.txt
d42638eb9e495917bec12a5b68f6fa44
c12bc4b735b10dbb6bbda76a51c7c518ed54d4fe
2457 F20110320_AAAVSX benson_n_Page_033.txt
88b2abaa8bc03512fd34a55b79c65e1a
08150d085de5381fce052cd989b5a1cccd9251ab
1917 F20110320_AAAUPV benson_n_Page_067.txt
e713696f0779d7a807fdd2c670212c05
ffaca241a1395848b9f90baddb9ff04a46966425
44407 F20110320_AAAUQJ benson_n_Page_127.QC.jpg
1ef7d80b5a57ec71bcc13c9847f82e1e
10c402208b5300a3b1bb0593579203dd8de66f3f
F20110320_AAAVUB benson_n_Page_089.txt
ddb57c3136be0fb5b21fbcdc9d468acf
8a9aef45ecf764fbfb036ffbdc614de9a9c89ef1
1981 F20110320_AAAVTM benson_n_Page_068.txt
279b904e1c2783433cd6771c546c7d24
c51059339fe79fca9490e860feead559330554e7
F20110320_AAAVSY benson_n_Page_037.txt
e12705d8f5dedfafb8639e436fe1abf5
77098f4704f409880b58c98dc4ebb7c29e1eb6a8
58721 F20110320_AAAUPW benson_n_Page_142.QC.jpg
e14306e6328384afc39cc1e54e5e65d6
5709b5ab638df6841429fc2bde3631b649558992
205103 F20110320_AAAUQK benson_n_Page_022.jpg
275c8c4d1d833073010c51b70943006e
38794e538375b9e06dd30240d6650f4a6c43b0d0
1283 F20110320_AAAVUC benson_n_Page_091.txt
a6d43aeee906f90f435a5d7f9e3d772b
e258fa7190b8e02d5573fa5d62188f6e3b1cfd89
1870 F20110320_AAAVTN benson_n_Page_069.txt
b7afb209393e8e2f424a148a0c59a2eb
0d4059fc8c2305c08fb5d9910fd2226590adf2ba
2026 F20110320_AAAVSZ benson_n_Page_044.txt
310d0fd20b6654c58ee12701016ca714
206349d53800de0cd98f416df9447183035e3cc5
2427 F20110320_AAAUPX benson_n_Page_032.txt
9eadd52d1e7a7801e621801d7098ae7b
27c439aacfa7e8563f89d6dc69d6cd8e44d24402
67895 F20110320_AAAURA benson_n_Page_066.QC.jpg
3a7c9b32e56666b004863cd1b498604a
6781c65161dc332c219a09a0c775c669b46a97c3
995169 F20110320_AAAUQL benson_n_Page_104.jp2
8eb74cf9aade672463a2320403571948
dc13dc314c0a94688bc8332650f632f4a2840e5b
526 F20110320_AAAVUD benson_n_Page_094.txt
b3f7f4ef2f872b523113fa6e4dd02a02
f0c825fcf4b7edee361291942bbced59de844740
F20110320_AAAVTO benson_n_Page_070.txt
e0da71c64fd92aa56eb7cc62fe4c88bd
795bb2e65ae1ba0c7ac731090b89cdef3ac38b7a
47772 F20110320_AAAUPY benson_n_Page_082.pro
fbf0e600b2a269429563f01c23427d73
5342897deed499a0ec2ec8d65ef39363e03497e9
740605 F20110320_AAAURB benson_n_Page_122.jp2
dd3b710e7b8b6be0e16d3b5ef7f655f3
2e9003a4c167d6b3eeadf80f8a08d77d8d8084c6
F20110320_AAAUQM benson_n_Page_123.tif
8fd799e4ec0afe28ce51e23deb79792b
1e1655ab6c7b9ed0fe9fbb16529662106916ad02
807 F20110320_AAAVUE benson_n_Page_095.txt
632e388018ab21eac3f544b761b6c288
825edc09bb1a0d7f06e0f4d25b2d8120274c7194
1971 F20110320_AAAVTP benson_n_Page_072.txt
fd027e8d1a536af0ca24a6ec9a61d524
26aae55d3c694862d2d967339eab60603213f97b
F20110320_AAAUPZ benson_n_Page_115.tif
29b6ab92f1d228245dd52c61da1854f2
46c774d707deef6ccf1ec3e38f452e8b7b4c9fa9
1936 F20110320_AAAURC benson_n_Page_118.txt
ebca09908606a8ed8c7f36a9a4a37512
c37beadc7acdf1814f1e87b080dabba15d6c2910
178517 F20110320_AAAUQN benson_n_Page_012.jpg
bbe5a4067216eded0b9c5ef24f654720
6029522ab01babdbb2382fdde7373147b788ab6b
1986 F20110320_AAAVTQ benson_n_Page_074.txt
d183167d89302d0da0cfadd364878700
11d7845b0ff159b75a79a26c94f7341d9325a4eb
2061 F20110320_AAAUQO benson_n_Page_046.txt
8d4cc244849dc6d4dd89c930eb1acc32
52c81aabec92c0ce3588b6cf7f528c5d8f0ace73
19574 F20110320_AAAWAA benson_n_Page_128thm.jpg
185eb16cf4e5bea2d5c435faecec2815
72d2799e5c522b68f4fa3e6088d08703a7f7d7db
483 F20110320_AAAVUF benson_n_Page_097.txt
aedc417eea899d56749c0121bfbeb24d
4d256eadf5c285c4a406590ce494e97041e7a2b7
1890 F20110320_AAAVTR benson_n_Page_075.txt
44671492b2bac87b53a8af20c838d43a
b4d1df91a1e37d69fbc1e7ba3d87d20893c5c462
74549 F20110320_AAAURD benson_n_Page_124.QC.jpg
4c06123810d52eedba469ce63e46a2e4
415a02b58b271cd5ab4d700ddb4c97e09865f683
47911 F20110320_AAAUQP benson_n_Page_058.pro
3193d0bd8e559cd751c48958cfdda5d8
6c211dc972fefbda1cb9f7209bc996def7058956
25275 F20110320_AAAWAB benson_n_Page_133thm.jpg
8e0fc7ea8b8872abfce5881fd745f20e
a43328af13d7286da6aed2d5e9c423fa3ddcef6d
1224 F20110320_AAAVUG benson_n_Page_098.txt
3ad09369dba334d5d2c9f85a3ac27efd
cc04c502fd142e3883eed589f5e8fbc13d0432d2
1921 F20110320_AAAVTS benson_n_Page_076.txt
a9b13889c205aa39227dec2837bfef0b
98921a90f8c6f5857acb1f9591cdc6c4f5b97aaa
75594 F20110320_AAAURE benson_n_Page_055.QC.jpg
ef4343f8eeaf4d276a6671ca49e5874b
902641b92b90a65981408157dff8748651c287e7
87564 F20110320_AAAUQQ benson_n_Page_010.jp2
5305a59018020537245acd22edb804e8
474bc40a5b794471316fa6fe3ac7cf73219a7e82
25376 F20110320_AAAWAC benson_n_Page_134thm.jpg
cce9e1c14104aafe6631f56273b4d0bc
ffebf3c0c765409b3bae7c917243c52b927c1bc7
1847 F20110320_AAAVUH benson_n_Page_099.txt
ecce64bded35ad62fb5a5cd6f5407781
b930e1106941f953e99394060699b6c8e3c9fe0c
1937 F20110320_AAAVTT benson_n_Page_077.txt
de932060b23cd6199ec832f129db1449
a133f0aacd31481f7fd8a4c8de08fdc3e4e7a350
74152 F20110320_AAAURF benson_n_Page_076.QC.jpg
e91e705e59f0075d465562fed3cc0b6d
71fd7dfe071973669ef413313a5811339848306f
68093 F20110320_AAAUQR benson_n_Page_003.jp2
e3c82516d9851b19dbe20e22273c6ed1
bb5bafcc8c98135a84bd379ae1f7c1f16da0499b
24286 F20110320_AAAWAD benson_n_Page_136thm.jpg
eafadf09db6a3ac0504e9400f057c51f
757b93160ab69b659737b38c1ebb975b5246ed1f
2504 F20110320_AAAVUI benson_n_Page_100.txt
6073d46962cef7a9c5c37b9ae6ffe1bd
9e78bdeadb8e30b44d829e3b9a6e549138067fb6
1806 F20110320_AAAVTU benson_n_Page_080.txt
8614168f47489d4e35697693ad8bba0a
8390e73c45d3e9b2517ee161d3141edc61f32106
22920 F20110320_AAAURG benson_n_Page_129thm.jpg
7bc0d0da91866d5cd8c8f04e82988d41
1cd9118975661b49711d32417f79d684d749bfda
23674 F20110320_AAAUQS benson_n_Page_114thm.jpg
fa324b2c023756dc0b6c686e823ab925
af9642724fce8cfc59f40bd9baf9d7894033a36d
24193 F20110320_AAAWAE benson_n_Page_137thm.jpg
672b8da61965c3c870534e87797bf963
4188d6a433cfaca6dae8433558a39eb16838356f
2189 F20110320_AAAVUJ benson_n_Page_101.txt
90dcc88bffc3024deae73270850a3494
3e8353038360899e450d72260ed7e0c2ef5e566e
1903 F20110320_AAAVTV benson_n_Page_081.txt
ba746263892b762cc52e62aaf19c8c1f
94f7546669d2ec41465fdcab4227df49910558c7
204750 F20110320_AAAURH benson_n_Page_067.jpg
2bfcbd0c511f75858684244e9402f011
150213828bcce4204c8a64857dd8a3d31a1b1584
F20110320_AAAUQT benson_n_Page_089.tif
2afb6f28951d0c9594e8b7d04e1815c1
e7b86674bdac585f62cea7dda2d281753b7ee0df
24632 F20110320_AAAWAF benson_n_Page_139thm.jpg
b6df523ced181c7b45e4026ccc7f0c53
74a4c79c21fcb09e962dbe9a584ef75ce7079efb
1843 F20110320_AAAVUK benson_n_Page_103.txt
80e096dfbd3edca38b6da7e17161069b
12767441444bebfc5953f39263eacba5540f7d2d
F20110320_AAAVTW benson_n_Page_082.txt
efe5843385f0c6483d6a515ce33c8ff4
d8dc136355b431241e7d9a181e8ace2982364e47
106945 F20110320_AAAURI benson_n_Page_034.jp2
407226d1bf04fadcb998878f59336d18
fc7a0963aca762cd09613dfec8a99f1891f71344
1935 F20110320_AAAUQU benson_n_Page_042.txt
be239eebe87ef68bf1f1da6db0791963
40cd384622e78de4969efa6472e110027e1cf742
25363 F20110320_AAAWAG benson_n_Page_140thm.jpg
d7a0b794fbdffae938bf5c569494df7b
099df49eb69168688eb95702c70da25eb6d4c001
2260 F20110320_AAAVVA benson_n_Page_137.txt
e59f1482ee0e086ab8dd18a4c124aa44
1cb696cc13c2928b8b0c0cd7937b42238ef2cd5f
2130 F20110320_AAAVUL benson_n_Page_104.txt
c93b0f2d5a7743ea9d6ca9224be4f043
b81aaf4fdc6f21d6c5b87c73c0b42cbe3a55d53a
F20110320_AAAVTX benson_n_Page_083.txt
ac394bdc251c7fab4dd3867554015828
15660ec8a607c07a11d9c496ef3949fe207632db
100466 F20110320_AAAURJ benson_n_Page_066.jp2
2fcd974855c360e90ee4514c99c8fb5c
cae811261f37708b0754a25713110d36440760e3
F20110320_AAAUQV benson_n_Page_059.tif
4bf8034e562cb600f566a46979eaac44
3f98b91d1e384299f4968604fd1fb149c304d264
14107 F20110320_AAAWAH benson_n_Page_143thm.jpg
05dfb28eaac9888fe5d83158794d9c09
dcdaec987d28416c26ff474229cc074af3c2b77e
2523 F20110320_AAAVVB benson_n_Page_138.txt
2205d3ee525759c803675aa5e4c28e7d
20929f87621089ced9efaf3c1abe73b5b2f5f115
1787 F20110320_AAAVUM benson_n_Page_105.txt
cfbd397d3df9457d755d8cd026749767
a97be2d0888066da0fac44f355f7ab219b03a924
1833 F20110320_AAAVTY benson_n_Page_084.txt
e1b7a6e40e26b8e1f1fd24076b8f0dde
8c3c1484ffd63effbfb5f8e4ef927bc5b169641e
74690 F20110320_AAAURK benson_n_Page_031.QC.jpg
02b817c0f076206e324adea771a435ff
f0a68742b62868438ba2c98c67f85eb3e6181273
68987 F20110320_AAAUQW benson_n_Page_106.QC.jpg
faf36672a56a53abe5f6ed18ad8322c8
03ce9d18e671db447ff4e981dbc02eb476a1b5a1
2495 F20110320_AAAVVC benson_n_Page_140.txt
15a4cb3ab4a4e46a1a3ae48762059695
8447f38a889c5672748de49fa24012444e4d0a5b
1652 F20110320_AAAVUN benson_n_Page_106.txt
71c80b068e701b7607650dd9138c9e32
7ff231923ca326ec26c317e4f047a80830d2a6fc
1939 F20110320_AAAVTZ benson_n_Page_085.txt
3f47a313907a9be51fb00706bcdbf758
b55b7bee57796a5f71395a5211e4a3c249393057
113797 F20110320_AAAUSA benson_n_Page_143.jpg
df1411e0312b44247f7f0b1bc594b660
66ca85a7ad8fcdfd5bcfe407ead6bedd184dad38
94110 F20110320_AAAURL benson_n_Page_015.jp2
62abbd6e2101e17fcb44c3ccb5324e06
14bc8031ce5839db2fcdf9651d7c25d86d8d878f
76375 F20110320_AAAUQX benson_n_Page_040.QC.jpg
8447065890e4cf7a48df00eb0d43cd0b
bf43eee1465819c985e80f3ab793ec706ae7dd75
2701 F20110320_AAAVVD benson_n_Page_141.txt
dbcd383e05c63cee79079a3052ae860c
9da2890daf60445a2e5eebc9c083be4f4b79843e
1984 F20110320_AAAVUO benson_n_Page_109.txt
ce370bfb0865012adf65f54e9f153c74
6ba5402b521e30a99325de2f9101ae2486896f9d
829365 F20110320_AAAUSB benson_n_Page_106.jp2
f78d1c3f9732b43b829a05bec3a90ecf
91d2d3dbce533d5a5ccf26e5f47cd8fb8131fc81
160246 F20110320_AAAURM benson_n_Page_130.jpg
c8824450b903444ea371764cc3efe268
2c3415e97442813c6d9c259201edb290dae9a515
F20110320_AAAUQY benson_n_Page_088.tif
61b20c245a1813dc43faeb2a669f7b14
fd2d493124a4587ea4782485a238b54453e33d82
1015 F20110320_AAAVVE benson_n_Page_143.txt
4ffd9a25c36f2c75a066ba4c1beb15da
60381c1c7b3ba442997e9563f1df67e8b0604d50
1901 F20110320_AAAVUP benson_n_Page_110.txt
fb83152363adec3a0991b18d377a0f1a
43b3d2bf4b6aa01bd0cb4853e43dda817c3533d3
76392 F20110320_AAAUSC benson_n_Page_087.QC.jpg
e78617cccc5df705c0cb0e1960f07c6e
031b2d03e4d073d55d6599a9403090144e0bb9cf
39368 F20110320_AAAURN benson_n_Page_079.pro
ee6f87ac37fb389187b13bd8dcb09c45
23079cde4c1445a1a6450938fda7e0b18f2db0dc
42910 F20110320_AAAUQZ benson_n_Page_021.pro
fb348562c69ef8facdc8633ec5720ba0
01501627346ebd8027c0d15e4a058f01aef3885f
75433 F20110320_AAAVVF benson_n_Page_016.QC.jpg
b86306f7bf9101bfa7d99b97f94c921c
1aca3b6ae75f9cff4b4c31e45f21da09e9a87e0c
F20110320_AAAVUQ benson_n_Page_113.txt
7983db42e4563b2d2873a251b46f6d25
00c60a3ba0246b19f46c7ba09f9d97a2aeb4ef14
107502 F20110320_AAAUSD benson_n_Page_063.jp2
e9a5daf7649bbd6e07aab8cfc6126cfe
4117bf6d75aa170b9917896216c65f448519af86
109213 F20110320_AAAURO benson_n_Page_020.jp2
75606c3ece0025778ca51e4cf8c9f14d
f4edffa3ad8299d3b786ec1efa6ea63132e8dd95
2027 F20110320_AAAVUR benson_n_Page_114.txt
4cff68380a69b6c179d1cfc414c93268
3481dacdf1ffb15b9ba765c3ca003848e2481323
107687 F20110320_AAAURP benson_n_Page_125.jp2
50ab06bb2d6c85c63ede11405c13859d
f10ce3a7877e6f0687701f843a56197002cfe00b
20583 F20110320_AAAVVG benson_n_Page_127thm.jpg
91c2b857edc41c1d13e1ae342cec574f
24e0bcc56291e6277a3789aad3b2a348b2374f83
1646 F20110320_AAAVUS benson_n_Page_115.txt
c17265ce8a41b208c524606b37cca3e9
12044f36f752b8c9c6c2463bf7efa280100f6906
362 F20110320_AAAUSE benson_n_Page_093.txt
57c523261156bcc82c2c454388c93692
e12380aee59e21bd124d04035dbb8b1ac88941e3
98703 F20110320_AAAURQ benson_n_Page_019.jp2
e567e7adb3fd7abafbe4c081a31fcaca
e3b3b540bc5cef9e682e180f47ed674ae3a0b0b9
83759 F20110320_AAAVVH benson_n_Page_135.QC.jpg
c551524e791af9cee1d2a5d3c62be9c3
bbdd268ba74f1d9b3a49392d01c69459815949ce
F20110320_AAAVUT benson_n_Page_119.txt
3bc96e224081ab1dada3ecdeedcb6935
99453362ae23aa159d327881d8e33b81afdab7a5
50926 F20110320_AAAUSF benson_n_Page_045.pro
2ce42f1be469381dd7eeb84781afb40d
fb0419849ca115bfc6f1336b2fdb117cc716d8b2
118124 F20110320_AAAURR benson_n_Page_127.jpg
ac139616f9ae30abd53fb07a908c3c8b
76796db702484f5e1ae0bb459011674345198033
71290 F20110320_AAAVVI benson_n_Page_021.QC.jpg
89932cac06942a9abcd9968e14af7e88
97c5fa46cbd2cdf93888a389d93dc72afcd11207
1941 F20110320_AAAVUU benson_n_Page_120.txt
fa2946cac3e70a1ceb9e60968975ddd0
d8ecc1328a42f9cbca93cb384b37f683ab51ce6d
53619 F20110320_AAAUSG benson_n_Page_091.QC.jpg
3872b8d3f37edfcd891560fa6efbd005
e09f381502bd4013e792dda15f18e488b8bc2185
23964 F20110320_AAAURS benson_n_Page_014thm.jpg
16ee4c0028e3897ce996775e72230544
9cfa5dfe36a994ff173c4464187824b84721f781
30415 F20110320_AAAVVJ benson_n_Page_008thm.jpg
dcf2911ea0a304966939b74d036f2fb4
f0f18fd756fd693a25ba8bf165111171fc7c5e36
2335 F20110320_AAAVUV benson_n_Page_124.txt
48b83b35e499004f6cf125022272b120
5a704acad068bbcd4588feddbe8af05c2c20b7bb
24361 F20110320_AAAUSH benson_n_Page_063thm.jpg
cd2b640963080317a5d1829ba8a0e8d8
bc31ffe2fa2e66d8a7babd71ff5934285c07d87c
62182 F20110320_AAAURT benson_n_Page_138.pro
3d20b4056966c8c4c60ab8a5c70735c1
185fa969a7735203bf1f32faa4c169739f6aeb87
83495 F20110320_AAAVVK benson_n_Page_138.QC.jpg
ab5899fad1e2114dceacb7be109a949a
fc52403911c4dfab879197d8693ea70e8c58e3e2
1679 F20110320_AAAVUW benson_n_Page_128.txt
fa8746828af7a38a2e70323aed30cb95
cb2f74607525a88119a9028553f42449328efb6d
51714 F20110320_AAAUSI benson_n_Page_053.pro
ae0e8117e8133a7bf85436b02b0f5316
c917c1d5f5ec187c283583b3f5aad598aacc5aa0
667245 F20110320_AAAURU benson_n_Page_129.jp2
8554a2358c13d58c5085565e5a3f18c6
21f7480f1bef9faf3ba23ca21082e5f0500d6b6c
78962 F20110320_AAAVWA benson_n_Page_044.QC.jpg
c08742b376284415b8ef8bf17e3ae757
cc34f1426c95796fea838d77bc3736b9ac0214ff
42425 F20110320_AAAVVL benson_n_Page_128.QC.jpg
ef78199cd1858831121f9f10ce99b4c9
dcb9b769942645951e00ba74b2f6bbd4583f74cb
2400 F20110320_AAAVUX benson_n_Page_130.txt
4e3792f131fce9648bd96bf87590b017
ee9417597e5d2e8adf9fc513fb0203267455c84c
24017 F20110320_AAAUSJ benson_n_Page_020thm.jpg
fb6f70e24f95852cafcab18aa2d07039
55d03f80c97432168c6065d80972a0b12746c95b
22539 F20110320_AAAURV benson_n_Page_080thm.jpg
eea0791c180bc19a0404b21e4784758a
382a1bb1e2fa2da1372c5f018e7eadb1451b9321
77949 F20110320_AAAVWB benson_n_Page_045.QC.jpg
0ba5fc7e2d0f24f19e42f75e2d943f6e
d1f0f4db615514e098885fad595a125693561dc4
23883 F20110320_AAAVVM benson_n_Page_089thm.jpg
b9cceb25b1053576cdceb3f863312831
3446944af8043967ca30663aee6632ff7983ac19
959 F20110320_AAAVUY benson_n_Page_131.txt
dcd0c56925d9bcf5fae30c9d79667865
d6cc99e1550c2b8cdbf701782522253f5138018d
24863 F20110320_AAAUSK benson_n_Page_090thm.jpg
f949c4fd0edc31a6f312a1cf946c349a
7b3e80640f9a88f536f91ef353310134145d4d11
F20110320_AAAURW benson_n_Page_119.tif
32052ce08654e6de04d64d3251ecad49
8637f1ac34a89c2914175f1dbed3e0fcce2cea1f
80100 F20110320_AAAVWC benson_n_Page_046.QC.jpg
8d136619df024a29b2bb56288f6a117b
e2d4ef1d44510830f7d39d49f1c1f139b741104c
231189 F20110320_AAAVVN UFE0009520_00001.xml FULL
6c264be9a754862cb59cb425615d3861
49d607e6e0bdf5ed93956a897d5612ccdc654263
2363 F20110320_AAAVUZ benson_n_Page_136.txt
5b0e6d7ca77e31359e6bb90c53ec6883
8f7c9da2cd9bc42913e2b0336e695c71843beff7
2318 F20110320_AAAUSL benson_n_Page_134.txt
48124916bdb9a44f71d3ffe8d653e863
998281bc2f490bdbf68622bdec11d63ae0515cc1
3464 F20110320_AAAURX benson_n_Page_004.txt
32c467766fa620cce170d00778db122d
485f8c773fe9e0de21b6a986605df5024f4e5de7
103739 F20110320_AAAUTA benson_n_Page_077.jp2
d673303baed637f6be8f55b0d2c75fc6
838699bfb23a30b952941d185b93e374e681f32c
71550 F20110320_AAAVWD benson_n_Page_047.QC.jpg
e4d2024820474d4ebff7bd3e75b71bdb
638f6d93f8305026b0b9539341255446f8e337c6
21576 F20110320_AAAVVO benson_n_Page_001.QC.jpg
27fe6ec9bda910cdaadf66301aadec5d
ae5d04b6051cfff25a9024868039b811e013dc65
19745 F20110320_AAAUSM benson_n_Page_120thm.jpg
8dda411dec413071acfa07a4d96f5039
0c7eeab6da85fded3db1e4a92aab9b4b05fd27b7
F20110320_AAAURY benson_n_Page_132.txt
c056c09b11de29c2f5a9997ab551d5ed
8e29e9d59e1055d5d1b2ad89840766bcbf9c9a6c
235909 F20110320_AAAUTB benson_n_Page_124.jpg
cb2d8f09011c6582d7d2d0d449518857
283214df26cd71284f0480e2917713fa93fc2616
80810 F20110320_AAAVWE benson_n_Page_050.QC.jpg
03f3b06488e9b14157fa8e8adb753720
3ac17aad9297a3761906d981d4c6338c7f5c3b60
6013 F20110320_AAAVVP benson_n_Page_002.QC.jpg
37e9a0014172483187ac6262d1f5e19e
23c5d8275a90c50e12a2b1e16f421c1a095bb5cc
88661 F20110320_AAAUSN benson_n_Page_079.jp2
615c5bbdd6ab70fca7959a5b9265fd90
b92baffe34d8bc510e143a8108331d92a0c378f0
109109 F20110320_AAAURZ benson_n_Page_088.jp2
7d32864ca54dad7e4e6a70067af23374
250db67bab215684e6cebd2d7f210f9e597445bd
260754 F20110320_AAAUTC benson_n_Page_004.jpg
ebd49f9a1278f91f952f0d1022df8836
ac3545c3813a26c122729544dca08076edfe9fd4
79153 F20110320_AAAVWF benson_n_Page_051.QC.jpg
8be27a679baf9e0df619bfae954ed8a5
4d6f210dc0ed256e004486e3d1cf23b3702b7bed
37943 F20110320_AAAVVQ benson_n_Page_008.QC.jpg
ce6d429019055c657126ed96dca778f3
8ed63bc48c6d1584cab6f8c7e650ce9493c6119f
1913 F20110320_AAAUSO benson_n_Page_065.txt
cac3f7276d195d9bd92dbf64f17197e5
fe4ae34c0b25e48527ddc2fb9e53a4d7657ffd13
1458 F20110320_AAAUTD benson_n_Page_126.txt
0b837d2564ca913e1d91c1d8c9aa0f09
468de3b42226ba261a37f58a751c1380634bceb0
92791 F20110320_AAAVWG benson_n_Page_052.QC.jpg
182758571106d5dd0bf548730793d7df
e951d2562405c6f9a38d87f484d877870f6702c9
66702 F20110320_AAAVVR benson_n_Page_015.QC.jpg
4e82149f7f2271de2b725bd477a6efd4
058197eb6ef024064d9550ab49b2764bb12f694d
1905 F20110320_AAAUSP benson_n_Page_123.txt
d30d7a5411c752b7abce870be4f330d0
4b201703904bf7ae3d1676f9978080e690de9ed9
F20110320_AAAUTE benson_n_Page_101.tif
5a9eac85bb980199b02f86823bcacb9e
53b1c767e3a590582d136668af283c56a3714c04
69812 F20110320_AAAVVS benson_n_Page_019.QC.jpg
9eedbe7c096960d31c200403453162c1
94c6c1bcd85bbe5dde3322d996fb7146f83a8fda
176431 F20110320_AAAUSQ benson_n_Page_010.jpg
0b35a68685c4139bcc3fcd46dbf60ec2
f52382ea18c068d99df00e74b323f16315bcb5c2
68973 F20110320_AAAVWH benson_n_Page_057.QC.jpg
5feed34530947651b5d99569be11977a
585d3f74f815a947a24f871c34879bc743053620
76859 F20110320_AAAVVT benson_n_Page_024.QC.jpg
757ada9995a3a02977807e13eaa306df
d3b1a61a7dd1b59018d8c53e1a2432fcef1948cd
91442 F20110320_AAAUSR benson_n_Page_115.jp2
38e096f31aaea7cae8a00844e4280713
ab7719c26f7c338b47460371735edb93b512cc46
98024 F20110320_AAAUTF benson_n_Page_047.jp2
781d5dbe543576afe37d6e771a4a636b
157367d4576095c33610e213afc7f99946423d98
80725 F20110320_AAAVWI benson_n_Page_059.QC.jpg
514177084ce72107d8a289ae29c021b4
5eee7d31865286bc9c3c46fb6b8333eb0b48ec0d
79267 F20110320_AAAVVU benson_n_Page_025.QC.jpg
5d20d90dbed5f849bc9f2d2ce7339824
24be818a0c6f27e5219044ce1030def513e5b152
F20110320_AAAUSS benson_n_Page_117.tif
ab3baba2c34ece7ad72980eb7d14694f
8c69904c6930d0c05dde61646059d315521e73ca
18605 F20110320_AAAUTG benson_n_Page_116thm.jpg
a94ba28859d782e9d43b4fcad752158b
029c2788eedd1b6f8e3cfdc06ee51ecd45792334
76527 F20110320_AAAVWJ benson_n_Page_061.QC.jpg
5330d601c56ca741ce0a4d780f04cba9
215decb8c93f17b0ef590c2b202236a70291d841
81234 F20110320_AAAVVV benson_n_Page_027.QC.jpg
eda10470eedd7d46a63f4c0d583769d3
6bfd1396ef8b1f0c3c4f8adeecb69ed09a8d65bc
49863 F20110320_AAAUST benson_n_Page_028.pro
688c7672e32151a639f4fd7c31623646
e3f2731442148143e1eb68cdbe7e54c1e3ce1936
192371 F20110320_AAAUTH benson_n_Page_102.jpg
51051909fcacc9ca6d32157d61186017
abbceec63ee44dae211dabfbf0093ff70d39b693
73481 F20110320_AAAVWK benson_n_Page_062.QC.jpg
8ca9b917dc830d5e863894411a4cf7b0
fbd354fd17d69d02ff975432e2d3c164a4f17c9e
79335 F20110320_AAAVVW benson_n_Page_028.QC.jpg
ce1f308f52e79ffde77fa228f5448452
59d2304595ee9b5d690fef75e7c3bb3fd2e31ffe
63351 F20110320_AAAUSU benson_n_Page_079.QC.jpg
420f4cac3327d92115177f2807d9159b
3bc58be87308e36320c2a46d1ed134c5cd4f03fe
208 F20110320_AAAUTI benson_n_Page_008.txt
5397fcc790c46d1a8ee0d0264141a51e
ae622c896bbadfab65552f9bf26e4a0af45d2fba
74656 F20110320_AAAVXA benson_n_Page_089.QC.jpg
4b09054960ed9ebea5855d7f5fc4b870
c9c44b0950edf2b0a2bf31a321e6f9ad46154803
77936 F20110320_AAAVWL benson_n_Page_063.QC.jpg
c59b60f6ec355bbc357881e98e9764c8
9e64819da1edaa7c28c080382341b67954e34ea7
73041 F20110320_AAAVVX benson_n_Page_030.QC.jpg
b953cf7e6525a40205fc5941325e4c8d
69d004dc8c2fb77bb5a88a3f1190fe883e3f0436
79980 F20110320_AAAUSV benson_n_Page_029.QC.jpg
c0d7ee8c77499ba9043ea76951fad593
059a7e6f9d60580ea9dc23ddfd2b4ff13c070277
F20110320_AAAUTJ benson_n_Page_047thm.jpg
9e6b7463e7aa8dbf97bdf350b59da949
71577759e0104b6557a2f29dc6158c22e653c01a
79934 F20110320_AAAVXB benson_n_Page_090.QC.jpg
15102d6ede85458b67d61f79d90baa35
505bd9644ff5811dc4979c66fcfee7f815411205
80278 F20110320_AAAVWM benson_n_Page_064.QC.jpg
814a2acede1cfa3cf38c923619b08295
1d8221dfc616d482fa68b3c54373f4c5ad1f29f1
82994 F20110320_AAAVVY benson_n_Page_033.QC.jpg
5a1321bb76785c776c988c03353320eb
add7afdb8c2e239d19d0f12df8c0823426a552d0
F20110320_AAAUSW benson_n_Page_047.tif
c641451056685aade643a3cb6f41749e
8d75e36fd9dd06c6fe3c354ab1ecfd32ad028e3e
F20110320_AAAUTK benson_n_Page_045.tif
cae5b21c4cfcc9c49ae9b2c8a9b18753
f81e464dfd7a52685f64cf173d07b1f3f8cbd3e7
61368 F20110320_AAAVXC benson_n_Page_092.QC.jpg
558dc771d4acabc25abbf24578b4756a
3fc9638870a7ad157b122444a9af17787f722f21
75981 F20110320_AAAVWN benson_n_Page_065.QC.jpg
38f9d30aa084c54e28fa400af231514e
0d07efce94640a04edba7948570a0519256fcf79
77511 F20110320_AAAVVZ benson_n_Page_039.QC.jpg
bb6875c2740af66efdf5460e83af94d2
f8af4ebdad687414c46f4efa2e08645527c940a5
16315 F20110320_AAAUSX benson_n_Page_117thm.jpg
ff13af91da2ccf5737204195166f4eb3
fe714b773b9054b28e41c46e681a51d573ab2460
1973 F20110320_AAAUUA benson_n_Page_013.txt
c1dc53e38d9cf15f141d5a594bbe5437
2b040e594c56dd24d570f48518440e9a6da70ed5
F20110320_AAAUTL benson_n_Page_065.tif
6dd5a2bb90790f495eef37ad7f2af4dd
a255777c3da236aecadcce03bfd1cd1d7379e5bf
60985 F20110320_AAAVXD benson_n_Page_093.QC.jpg
31a4c03cf4f45c8cdd3ecb3479d97b94
f2e9516b3cec29cd63475066027c868b137efe15
77133 F20110320_AAAVWO benson_n_Page_068.QC.jpg
d8b00a3fe9ddca83e5fe72225c98840e
4e113eda59d9264a981cdb351580d009eb4ab912
F20110320_AAAUSY benson_n_Page_064.tif
3e44969b9854db53ee4dfa297a188485
cf4faf5b5b429115b369dc9ca7dede3fa0ca554e
286246 F20110320_AAAUUB benson_n_Page_141.jpg
9e58e3ab78357127e4a50ada2bad3c70
9e23559b257cb10fe1c04840266b86bd25d1b4a2
17244 F20110320_AAAUTM benson_n_Page_142thm.jpg
aa230c241e994f900a04e8108254ec03
e7fb5c6e2a30cd33f818974c15c3d32b7258ef80
79409 F20110320_AAAVXE benson_n_Page_102.QC.jpg
c2474a11733817cad5b50196f8f406c0
85e1f374e169086963438a0072ab6dc686b6d244
71696 F20110320_AAAVWP benson_n_Page_069.QC.jpg
be62842bce90c1f7955a2de62b5bdecc
303794ea75b4fd5ca4d0f232fa0bf751119f8921
81028 F20110320_AAAUSZ benson_n_Page_035.QC.jpg
1f07c0c07ada1a1c71f5e30accf18880
c2b4186bba77ec3acf483ab5ce3aa1fac35e8cb5
F20110320_AAAUUC benson_n_Page_018.tif
19e1bd329ce2072d41831fc8efd257da
5aff5ca7a351fa80ce7e0a02ac7d5b92b2ba94cd
F20110320_AAAUTN benson_n_Page_068.tif
58f4d99f0e8662e72a3738466327d2c7
5c37fad8b1527d2bf6506abc0e9bafdebc6bccae
78496 F20110320_AAAVXF benson_n_Page_104.QC.jpg
573acf2fcaafee3203f113ed638aa2d6
c933fc4ccd1ab410767a33082e5c09c3f3050764
70268 F20110320_AAAVWQ benson_n_Page_073.QC.jpg
77a06075083139e7d87f19769a953bb8
ec6fc3e4546a1eb3e995e41c27b62b3b60d1565b
24141 F20110320_AAAUUD benson_n_Page_051thm.jpg
8a4ec3b7b4366ce6440e227d3b585006
ea66c084b3f597751c90066e7912a6383a93fce3
103508 F20110320_AAAUTO benson_n_Page_038.jp2
fea21dfe2fb958055c9b0864e653f92c
68b76e758dad94aae79f038b184ec4d580f5fcf9
73454 F20110320_AAAVXG benson_n_Page_105.QC.jpg
d6064d0bb8ad47f490d531413411f4eb
5923161765eb3b2fa9dd5a53d501bc548c536001
77262 F20110320_AAAVWR benson_n_Page_074.QC.jpg
c15c4b29d915ea2f64f1a4279234e5d2
a608f9fa73845cec5b8c1b7170e42af259327ea6
24936 F20110320_AAAUUE benson_n_Page_049thm.jpg
ef939d087a0164990bde6d0c2bb7c779
72e2d8a7565f4c2d667985177d5a737e8191d0be
F20110320_AAAUTP benson_n_Page_099.tif
a950b90d01bab556e3da0ce558b0a56d
6172686a6e39271e2cf0560cb4cda9a77ca02131
61869 F20110320_AAAVXH benson_n_Page_108.QC.jpg
eb2329a426d8908569741b0a60d13b0e
00464ffeaac226351421fe3ce6ec94a1f9862e17
74722 F20110320_AAAVWS benson_n_Page_075.QC.jpg
559965d11070449dcb7abfa938eb3029
747c7a8b2b93a3e81329e91172c46904c200e7d2
1911 F20110320_AAAUUF benson_n_Page_040.txt
898cf989b184273d08cc3dbebb9641e3
8f9b9fd585eedba6823a30b0036d567459fd8042
50174 F20110320_AAAUTQ benson_n_Page_112.pro
cb9271d9c0ac1be9da2da3fdb2b29f5e
cc64ed5292ce21888d2cc53b996aa76591aa94ca
74142 F20110320_AAAVWT benson_n_Page_077.QC.jpg
55ac5eb4c3285f0b6940e9c549e57bab
b526d9e6cf323f3809b6c6bc6aa70a3edfdb8845
F20110320_AAAUTR benson_n_Page_122.tif
e8abe6a10dfdd07359296606041348b0
96870e578b8c60626782ef4460999378eaeadf15
1977 F20110320_AAAVAA benson_n_Page_020.txt
c29291a6eeb0f80f4da025949dcc4e25
78e73dc3ea9bc4836d0eb11bdd33c7f4e2d8b437
78520 F20110320_AAAVXI benson_n_Page_109.QC.jpg
5f48012de0e0830078529dbdc4b9ff32
cffb7f14e2c2396255d33c211246fa119e3f9dcb
70586 F20110320_AAAVWU benson_n_Page_080.QC.jpg
71014ac8109e76f74837b989075f84d3
6eccdd879187f73789ff1d6edad4993c6b42ea75
20302 F20110320_AAAUUG benson_n_Page_078.QC.jpg
0e3b88dd92c4892bd6d6a6fa448397f6
b4b2b319db035edded30567d17580fc2ba5186fe
F20110320_AAAUTS benson_n_Page_034.tif
467fea8dd7bc386f28d5bf32e63959ac
b82ffdb47408424ddffe8fe88861e4d7535360fb
45183 F20110320_AAAVAB benson_n_Page_018.pro
c0773cc3c74f963e1530035b47c4695c
5228d08a0ecd97fa82b73c1a85f1122d0e933902
79040 F20110320_AAAVXJ benson_n_Page_112.QC.jpg
542f8f85170bd1da8188bd3e655480fb
4a792e71a48bac5429178faf0cd330871e7cd956
79185 F20110320_AAAVWV benson_n_Page_082.QC.jpg
4b3dd10c006c4513f273b91185d1c4f0
0f95c6c99e9b8eeb41ccf50c39533b098b080ff2
191895 F20110320_AAAUUH benson_n_Page_103.jpg
20e4f11bdaf1534419015f52f9b7cdd3
8f945b8b65294a4e714927aa67c1df80336d86ec
211022 F20110320_AAAUTT benson_n_Page_074.jpg
48b7282798e86723cc7617d9e0a71dde
9db99f0465aa95c28d0ae18645771f661a55d34a
104989 F20110320_AAAVAC benson_n_Page_040.jp2
775695649b7030a0fd1f14f828fb1c7d
2bb97fade1122424f587d0b1fcc3e6bd01c9786c
76749 F20110320_AAAVXK benson_n_Page_114.QC.jpg
0ad3e8e585fb435d2a9d1a9d2626cf96
64306d19e8b357db7f9d76c31b1bc12bf68755a1
78127 F20110320_AAAVWW benson_n_Page_083.QC.jpg
e9776d470ddf3edee10fa9b4459dc371
665ac81a8301b122d34f9536f32a7559c5e5d822
F20110320_AAAUUI benson_n_Page_031.tif
b552782b4afce1e24ff09d4ab6bc7748
ba2cf0d5611bb92063b456f5cf5ecb5c0e082b5c
F20110320_AAAUTU benson_n_Page_059.txt
39adfbc84fc2484f491c820ef5488237
aa56d050daab57ba82b2e4da977f8a7ac0c46bbd
11602 F20110320_AAAVAD benson_n_Page_078.pro
7cc23d2d12b9fbd8303aec43015444fe
cf83cb6ad8302f7a47bb56d8ae5b79a1b4d3af23
23669 F20110320_AAAVYA benson_n_Page_018thm.jpg
609d9c0e3ef2d572797fba11ba7b6272
7e4b9e3f988e5b694d59f21c374093e8ba4b9e20
40284 F20110320_AAAVXL benson_n_Page_116.QC.jpg
5ef5d732d76fd2120b4f93c352dde00b
55112a3d6879a1da1ae06d59944ce26f607cf37e
72851 F20110320_AAAVWX benson_n_Page_084.QC.jpg
3e1855657b197047bbc38db669bb7b7a
0c92af1c8c548ac5d0f88fe292915e32aeaf1584
34228 F20110320_AAAUUJ benson_n_Page_009thm.jpg
ca2d29f6b6f28ca478014df1393775a2
a466d908561aa376656e25f6b26ba035d4ab0f55
212991 F20110320_AAAUTV benson_n_Page_112.jpg
6fc31b79a3e7069a3e69e5d051725cb1
4aed7ec4c771c7eb9bdadc036ced703a6ba84255
46177 F20110320_AAAVAE benson_n_Page_084.pro
3dfa33faf2189073ad4f97836f3affed
4f1c113062319f49e38efe97dffbeec075dce8db
22484 F20110320_AAAVYB benson_n_Page_019thm.jpg
78425c536bd628d84547c33b9f36c5d3
f2525f3ad714af748f96dff3c0da4027c4c6259d
29743 F20110320_AAAVXM benson_n_Page_117.QC.jpg
96bcbabb96fdf2fcfb23ef4be917d619
73ca0cedd4ed208d4aa002ef1bfcbbc8b2d6b46e
79625 F20110320_AAAVWY benson_n_Page_086.QC.jpg
d779fa6d41c56428aa461aeec696a7bc
b9ac2ac38331bcdd8e902cc12cec3cfe846f5a16
158528 F20110320_AAAUUK benson_n_Page_122.jpg
a4481d1bfd09e8b0df4419c783f929a2
fb75b32d43337a5f66df803bbb3a0b62d256a438
78248 F20110320_AAAUTW benson_n_Page_098.jp2
a6ff96198aadaace122a924bb6b04b60
963e4b2fe06f44b6b95032644ecf28fa12ff8628
59920 F20110320_AAAVAF benson_n_Page_107.QC.jpg
62c15381ce21fa25184890eeb741427a
f17ab80d09d7b43da29906e798c92d7b74feef1f
23522 F20110320_AAAVYC benson_n_Page_024thm.jpg
dd29d50dd9603ad786e6fc24dc6062e3
7cef7124e9a6e4b6861165eb275a2aa7052dc1b4
39792 F20110320_AAAVXN benson_n_Page_119.QC.jpg
860bbf62d89b325066a40f8103277d47
f8fcf085c89ec3696b725b1514ee62d9205e5b47
77930 F20110320_AAAVWZ benson_n_Page_088.QC.jpg
a51bd4dc86074c87ccc9721bea882ba4
1e3f2286cc08ebc1c04f4f9ffd6279ce262ea3b4
200074 F20110320_AAAUVA benson_n_Page_030.jpg
0cc18d5523473244db5b33fa825ddecb
e4d3f89a0467985c78d7f0df2bb8e31a2a72da36
118867 F20110320_AAAUUL benson_n_Page_124.jp2
2eee228269cae649f39ab97a7f23219a
acfe13204cb6c62465677aff1651d7ab81901622
F20110320_AAAUTX benson_n_Page_112.tif
0cfcc8e95e152c96a1c94fdc2e1d2072
9acbb7df21a3c957f4b59e9a0b4f04fe8a04203d
45687 F20110320_AAAVAG benson_n_Page_097.QC.jpg
0aeaa3867b97e40d5fb9a826ae777b09
5b6d54455f8cb43ec7a1292c4d673e6aba47e4b4
24911 F20110320_AAAVYD benson_n_Page_028thm.jpg
9fed6be38482693564deff9874c26a7d
10f5248a770069289da12ccca940708ffce0034c
55830 F20110320_AAAVXO benson_n_Page_121.QC.jpg
6e68da9f93c1da29b7ade19a52a79a77
18856b5cf5e4c4b76446c0e70d9288926643609a
98115 F20110320_AAAUVB benson_n_Page_005.QC.jpg
26d6269033ea77b69ad5966af0b45b1b
e4bd5348894100c90f998b760872641408b664d6
108803 F20110320_AAAUUM benson_n_Page_074.jp2
3418705ebdc01c974062228e95fcfe46
289097d2d3f6ba6e43e9dc717172264b65710953
F20110320_AAAUTY benson_n_Page_138.tif
41aca24810d5f9dda6617f1eba687f84
7b1f0c5dc43dc567558dba7bd185eee5e6f60b7e
F20110320_AAAVAH benson_n_Page_029.tif
f643e253dbf2bab43c1bda7038d5f275
e319884703ec9cb2cf6db2ad250ba2f40af5569a
23468 F20110320_AAAVYE benson_n_Page_031thm.jpg
5948b5ff1daa8a81314a61e258f1af75
084198f5c1751ca35174d4be0ca1ff5a72e0843b
58984 F20110320_AAAVXP benson_n_Page_123.QC.jpg
0c776824634bd9471ebb4d792818856c
1389b915067a9a4fd663533aaf51c72aa37dcddf
95419 F20110320_AAAUUN benson_n_Page_004.QC.jpg
fcbdc447cca4f2d58097555e66717a1a
87a273867c531139659c4bf7d063d13ae498852d
F20110320_AAAUTZ benson_n_Page_085.tif
9d0b3f47b4405d0f67437362842ea0b0
9facc92fce623db14ecf444a3f9d56a7c0f3b619
51790 F20110320_AAAVAI benson_n_Page_050.pro
1fb66fe15ec54f90cd57aecc590994d6
9cfa2095f1eff76abc907175d78e043024c2f5db
140975 F20110320_AAAUVC benson_n_Page_129.jpg
e3d62131ec7d69dd73a35d994035e313
657142e7d533dee7c6e354c6d3a1e26b8bc88116
29960 F20110320_AAAVYF benson_n_Page_033thm.jpg
6859fe918af0fcc2d55c42e98f27f4fa
720ee9025c1adb253f400b18bc14ef9e58dbf8a5
49723 F20110320_AAAVXQ benson_n_Page_126.QC.jpg
41cbcd6bf75d7cb822baf3508a686946
bd70e719c52d78434923a21c0aadd1ee93abf151
33243 F20110320_AAAUUO benson_n_Page_052thm.jpg
1f03d7541f51735bc3e9c59c59e7a320
231e0aff4bbb767123c350d86b5e33651b2f5e7f
1839 F20110320_AAAVAJ benson_n_Page_018.txt
bf2f1bead91b0d5356bab90befa98396
10922a81ac49bcbc28d4c0235611e85a148ed7b3
262894 F20110320_AAAUVD benson_n_Page_135.jpg
f466cb1f56bb5264786b774ac0be4585
ad07cc1d7cdbb332fe552ccd158cba5f246d96f6
24616 F20110320_AAAVYG benson_n_Page_034thm.jpg
3c5717e4d47a88d085c6aa5bcc4156fb
c3b3c271f4ed05e4bf7466d35d98ec301385ed59
52900 F20110320_AAAVXR benson_n_Page_129.QC.jpg
93e2487389f308bcf4400865e6507ee1
5c1a289a39da712a095bf87bc26864367087d8af
2382 F20110320_AAAUUP benson_n_Page_007.txt
a49f95680600e5b326c650a82ddf46eb
769c072119515c761d46bf46cdaa4dabf9e322fb
42835 F20110320_AAAVAK benson_n_Page_015.pro
47b833b63e384230ab98b81fd5e08362
b834daac0b0243373f44b02441138f1e4f3d9d76
76378 F20110320_AAAUVE benson_n_Page_043.QC.jpg
f236a06f303459322ba0abc99cd9e089
47a9a4bd2c83cae7e3d268236fc752669de84b4d
26328 F20110320_AAAVYH benson_n_Page_035thm.jpg
d321edd83ac84a326bd6f6e14a219a94
2ee8547e10de7218fef69d26ccc7a711563f684a
79177 F20110320_AAAVXS benson_n_Page_137.QC.jpg
0c5c67acfdbe4b3f57c37be2a049ec77
7b4d636746482a366dc0d81720e19e6c2574c787
20457 F20110320_AAAUUQ benson_n_Page_009.pro
6722bee32a3e4591405e3b37aea3cae0
a6c55b21c46e7f200abe5459b91fd2fbecc569ac
111076 F20110320_AAAVAL benson_n_Page_037.jp2
63d57817f52da2bb3105320f46d5b70d
6aabe49505ffe2d1a5a2c84b288ad21aac28c150
F20110320_AAAUVF benson_n_Page_041.tif
0410d6984f016a3809d64bb6512c7404
12feb475229cdbf278f50299a95b4bf4701e9ba5
24018 F20110320_AAAVYI benson_n_Page_038thm.jpg
a3242ab0fa3c0dd20bfc0aa387c049f9
3b9bb201c4454296b7de423b70fd2eb6197a2884
88879 F20110320_AAAVXT benson_n_Page_141.QC.jpg
08e4910a71c5829f6660d2e435f6968d
9c40ddc4da88048d7b2dfafdbad44226942735b5
F20110320_AAAUUR benson_n_Page_111.tif
b35dce5fc63c13e03a96766fbf17b443
52335feb7883759643ac3cb98e62014ddd3cfaf7
109226 F20110320_AAAVBA benson_n_Page_051.jp2
49502de4ed9d5239aa66bd49dbed75ea
2a260b517923b8b465cbd80bdc6137d5301bb082
39481 F20110320_AAAVAM benson_n_Page_118.QC.jpg
dd92946a8ac50ef5e81c1617b5bfe323
381332347f51501feb36a3e201efd914f0072ae3
F20110320_AAAUVG benson_n_Page_049.tif
8c71cc8a805b48f04a8491a4165cfcfe
a9cefdb02406b48c4a089e2532d7ff12ef41e42c
7706 F20110320_AAAVXU benson_n_Page_001thm.jpg
512bcb4841da53a5370ede8c3698b7e6
62f468105030ca6422d8f7a67e9328cfa7a07cea
37144 F20110320_AAAUUS benson_n_Page_107.pro
b5df0dc30bb332b26e4ea9b0f15d3231
8048420506d19f43459736d0e5cbb03d9e8e63fd
212411 F20110320_AAAVBB benson_n_Page_070.jpg
c7bd6ed455118e533928daa7b2685935
95b315e53ef33cbdd74cf7d1b4ed52eb6eb92c6d
77628 F20110320_AAAVAN benson_n_Page_020.QC.jpg
3a9ee05f65be4e00d9312e2db2c9bcf5
805960ed0e2f75a89587d647d730eece32f25ff7
25939 F20110320_AAAVYJ benson_n_Page_039thm.jpg
eb52643711fa69b7d8c3a076e5f31477
5f594e2b13491cd68fbab3196fa48b509e666632
19660 F20110320_AAAVXV benson_n_Page_010thm.jpg
42822a34f47d47ce94f16894f899b73e
1eee32e0d2f17b55d8d26c6dc04fb9666a7241b2
24127 F20110320_AAAUUT benson_n_Page_076thm.jpg
c8f6b98aa6bdd6d142bc4adc024538d1
4cfe051caaff6af3842af8062608c7885edce157
19399 F20110320_AAAVBC benson_n_Page_117.pro
ffc681bb07e674f58cda69eaeaca6615
c6ad22b5887b518439b0ff5c509041ea5b6b6b6d
1967 F20110320_AAAVAO benson_n_Page_054.txt
8df008ae9fe15f2ca6f85b43e4e559d1
90e26bec6bef62b7b8d93c0193dc08ab01e39992
23753 F20110320_AAAUVH benson_n_Page_065thm.jpg
f148a00277c65d5aea6979652cc099f4
b09a259d75316b70d71867d690dc0edc1825c630
22378 F20110320_AAAVYK benson_n_Page_041thm.jpg
516990b716754da0b309026e485b1055
43459462a8257d33157a92a1cc563cddaa6fe4d2
7298 F20110320_AAAVXW benson_n_Page_011thm.jpg
12179937178cd529a35f188dc708c8f0
c7b9ab951d6680e8bd24e9ed9da2c6b653a9dff2
44708 F20110320_AAAUUU benson_n_Page_066.pro
598b1f1d483c43fece720c1ae9e22532
336e94391c7030b09d92d50e6261865ff85a98b9
111139 F20110320_AAAVBD benson_n_Page_113.jp2
77d2ab77b20385eed411d641e5865254
3def8ba8da5854e197cdafbdbce79cc143f98a30
76725 F20110320_AAAVAP benson_n_Page_017.QC.jpg
502c2d222b8b40ec84b65d24680e8395
51a81cb3db795d29010c69360af4cb1ab53544f4
42406 F20110320_AAAUVI benson_n_Page_105.pro
dbb9423ac11c1bb5c912bb17ffeb2188
9b4533213c28755e889b328dfe0202b127f15f8d
25343 F20110320_AAAVZA benson_n_Page_074thm.jpg
edfd737e54102513ce9d6aaa5507086f
b1046df979c9813f34e08a43dab2519c016cb4f8
23549 F20110320_AAAVYL benson_n_Page_043thm.jpg
c2e449fb92e9aa990317a03385199102
5f0dfb24286c94a4bd00ea6c5de62c989879207c
20756 F20110320_AAAVXX benson_n_Page_012thm.jpg
519e4fb141dfa0c108d0fe2245eaf888
49c4184ea684afcab43b924647a40bcb31d1658d
23834 F20110320_AAAUUV benson_n_Page_042thm.jpg
449e7c82b4e0c289bb7fde0d8d37bca8
61d293b1b1ee3a0fe0ac75c7d90d05fb42c62af4
39475 F20110320_AAAVBE benson_n_Page_120.QC.jpg
4a4a84f6548f9b07980e70050046f772
4f199464c14cca45d7c68560f2731b0d7e3dc7ea
24503 F20110320_AAAVAQ benson_n_Page_088thm.jpg
6d1e764aeccaf71923465203513ecdd2
bd308606ddbe2b9af4daefb4bf17426ce0bc3f13
16537 F20110320_AAAUVJ benson_n_Page_131thm.jpg
6172832f71975c95001bfbb61142672a
84ae4e4c16cd356e273b1e91eae5abbc904e335e
23843 F20110320_AAAVZB benson_n_Page_075thm.jpg
e87e59fccacde74da97939b654940333
edbeac446783fced944b6e2c8032e75a31771e31
25654 F20110320_AAAVYM benson_n_Page_044thm.jpg
273359835f5b4af333ffec0c45cdf559
65191c34ecc3bd1212d9639c7d6d2464d03d7ab1
25228 F20110320_AAAVXY benson_n_Page_013thm.jpg
f37826bdd6a6ddfc2c2ee04179ee8158
2c5a8be4d2299cd09341ea32eae7c99457652003
75088 F20110320_AAAUUW benson_n_Page_013.QC.jpg
23b04fecd8a206eab569f94becb28af5
81695949095f5e84b8485b3f268453e9826072b2
F20110320_AAAVBF benson_n_Page_041.txt
121c1c5c267a800635e4ee9aee1fdf4b
adbd22c7803d4c7c18a3d4b6c824ac3dca0484eb
F20110320_AAAUVK benson_n_Page_107.tif
fbe8ae7bf7899b82200aea3e024ff24c
9cbfb369a8ef4883f37828cce5d806417d51c9cc
23575 F20110320_AAAVZC benson_n_Page_077thm.jpg
5b487f6a3138717120d6ad7b27623146
2ef0f8851917529f97a514afd0092da1a18e8ca1
24985 F20110320_AAAVYN benson_n_Page_048thm.jpg
751a47fd02a80c3d5e3f80d8a458c5d8
cee120f1fc05a525dec4fc99c56557e9c8452365
23739 F20110320_AAAVXZ benson_n_Page_016thm.jpg
9cd2a94330d23b29071b675d77150772
44ad99e9c8deff43682d5b23133e2ed2610aa64f
56655 F20110320_AAAUUX benson_n_Page_006.pro
6634b2654fee753e6b69aa59ed589357
ce6c09153bf4956be952b078b4b1d701086d916b
66497 F20110320_AAAVBG benson_n_Page_132.QC.jpg
9dd68d5e8a1256440d3239cf25a70284
3fab62030eef3a90aff4708c128e55076c02a19e
76159 F20110320_AAAUWA benson_n_Page_131.jpg
0d7942d08597df0f461f0e6635816bc6
0184e4c462a6c17bdf746da81c877b2b101c9e6f
83021 F20110320_AAAVAR benson_n_Page_032.QC.jpg
68b9ba966249c092eb47b5240a18ff5f
d20c855cc40710d2ab85e8beeb05de3f54d5e518
77361 F20110320_AAAUVL benson_n_Page_049.QC.jpg
e39c2a67208864b7347ab560846dc9ce
eb1b87c1f23b37fd8c1ce0e8a043e769fda175c2
7205 F20110320_AAAVZD benson_n_Page_078thm.jpg
f54472be1a3ef4f3ef8bb56bbe64323c
7ee891d17a788a563329c7d56c7b20cf3582c431
25161 F20110320_AAAVYO benson_n_Page_053thm.jpg
907b9df66efc2a911b854bfb6775af95
a3a6d9a61a1ff441de18fefcdbd3ffa1c3d737ae
2040 F20110320_AAAUUY benson_n_Page_035.txt
075d30c177e59465ac672082786d7f21
3ff9ed4b3a9e65cc1389a33d46c79d8927ab389c
23809 F20110320_AAAVBH benson_n_Page_040thm.jpg
e00f700f50928f4eecb91a8cbfe24ddd
b0ba43467d6faf39bc287721d891875de68f3790
20548 F20110320_AAAUWB benson_n_Page_011.QC.jpg
ae90fdac3abef585de3c4127efef9998
6bc8bf2967553aff477d5271daed0b68b6ef4b15
31568 F20110320_AAAVAS benson_n_Page_032thm.jpg
805ed2376da3bf8cecec039c42e5b016
2d19990e5020b1a65be82d68120e62eb34c6bec5
111209 F20110320_AAAUVM benson_n_Page_050.jp2
3011f144d7aec85297b0f52e92173e78
62b79f3e77d0ca465aa2ee4832265c04c77452a8
21217 F20110320_AAAVZE benson_n_Page_079thm.jpg
aa9a8b5b570738a438f327358a0dab03
824c5c3140c3894827f5e7eeffadd3134c18f9b7
23691 F20110320_AAAVYP benson_n_Page_056thm.jpg
63b215e5a8b25ab396caa424e0940d4b
c37ad3f912072984ee7e8949a06d4402132cb645
F20110320_AAAUUZ benson_n_Page_052.tif
c36062e824ced33ff790cd07573ad229
29768879d729676a8aaf1c74923564faa6dac9a1
30829 F20110320_AAAVBI benson_n_Page_102thm.jpg
53c7c1c27836950244220a6db85a9d03
810f34b1c815cb8e406bae48eb556ab2f7345122
26848 F20110320_AAAUWC benson_n_Page_107thm.jpg
a35f245a411790db3ab3852150310bf3
9dbeab09b7cb04628900df562647c141b39e309b
68704 F20110320_AAAVAT benson_n_Page_125.QC.jpg
ae6e802ee6e646656a0854962e12f22b
9826848972f9e407985cbdbd30834bd500cc3529
24225 F20110320_AAAUVN benson_n_Page_036thm.jpg
6eab8a5d07ac2b24d7af2550021f7242
c5525fec038d264a93cbd111863c5e7cb479ad94
24196 F20110320_AAAVZF benson_n_Page_082thm.jpg
8552a104fc3d000e4a5b240a479ed017
8b537ee2f7aa351bcd7a92f32cad8fea386dfb48
23334 F20110320_AAAVYQ benson_n_Page_057thm.jpg
f9f44ec190b2f31f91bcd428cc4217b6
a5433312971d72a57fd7facfbc546b9a616922a5
43001 F20110320_AAAVBJ benson_n_Page_143.QC.jpg
6e81ac4299d32cf70a007b8485dd9ec0
f6b49fa850fdfa7515d2030fb27e17a38ef61f16
F20110320_AAAUWD benson_n_Page_036.tif
baa046400d2033a3c07f1578a5a9abd9
6b655edef63a8cfe52867cd33f5364c808ceeb56
20168 F20110320_AAAVAU benson_n_Page_098thm.jpg
cfb2761c1bdde7bdbd05c5abf7759b49
09682aaec1fb4bcc9aae7f8a30afc4d6eee1cb55
30150 F20110320_AAAUVO benson_n_Page_105thm.jpg
4f4ec7624f4d5cb97439b64588076a74
45dfbae4fefb497d31707464a82c7db10a57c853
23997 F20110320_AAAVZG benson_n_Page_083thm.jpg
298f9d154d95266018be83dac51d3474
1d6418ec74fe20566bc58aad607dd4d958d9f236
23192 F20110320_AAAVYR benson_n_Page_058thm.jpg
a9d3cd6ffef5be390aa788928705218f
2b56dd0050444feef16d0cb437f07bcc0dbf9791
F20110320_AAAVBK benson_n_Page_021.tif
88a8e3cc815a221a72351bc62fea49c6
4482773f207ce677ec33e6dee52a848810549194
72750 F20110320_AAAUWE benson_n_Page_103.QC.jpg
a83e911c8aa6c2b7d801275884987be0
c736a2e8fe7cb5d10880cf01a81f430443080529
78179 F20110320_AAAVAV benson_n_Page_054.QC.jpg
b26cb72a4efa654f677af913cf081f71
6f4f03738b80a16106693ba37599e58f883bbfe9
22294 F20110320_AAAUVP benson_n_Page_100thm.jpg
2e96094c549af893cd180a6ab8c0caf6
7ab4da309dab6466f3c31e7042267a564d8cbcf8
23898 F20110320_AAAVZH benson_n_Page_084thm.jpg
f01cd530fa20930cd11dca23e0456fd2
96173045872afa9bbeee07826a3ddac5d21068b0
24657 F20110320_AAAVYS benson_n_Page_059thm.jpg
b2dbf14f963c02d79ce0a0c7fc8cd1da
7a1d5c90880042384f46dea0db27f89aa0cd4f97
227069 F20110320_AAAVBL benson_n_Page_033.jpg
60fdf3e3d9c824d3a462ed943bb7f773
3feb29bb0a1dfaba58e384d9d262ccf1a02e27e3
1963 F20110320_AAAUWF benson_n_Page_063.txt
c17abbe41e15b920bfe3cf749a6f412f
ef0455bc66a1d106ec19d6f07a02c39c4d3db68c
1692 F20110320_AAAVAW benson_n_Page_079.txt
91b2cc4acbfbbe9b43a33fa1c90b745c
3fb1e51885b4a06457522bc7af94fca23b79187d
202139 F20110320_AAAUVQ benson_n_Page_062.jpg
e032d4e1f61bb9446f87d5d42cc9e2d9
fffcb797c06dda3bf899bc8f1dd75fe658ad8bc5
24153 F20110320_AAAVZI benson_n_Page_085thm.jpg
3b3db6f6dc3cd0c26a8ba1b4193fbbf0
316f3ead19d192e45d30038fa569c1fa2193c1d8
23730 F20110320_AAAVYT benson_n_Page_061thm.jpg
92fe402fa8812e0d75a2bd4666b4fe5c
b0b7833f756589e79a4f6dc3bd3434116affa312
2425 F20110320_AAAVBM benson_n_Page_121.txt
6e60e0fb2312c7e72b87388cdc59eb63
9d9d3c61f7824d3f5afba7531d4dc6bceabc8d3b
199042 F20110320_AAAUWG benson_n_Page_055.jpg
6ace4352831e8a386e872b3064f01480
03ac0aa45a9066bbd468786516dbd73939b5c1ea
81175 F20110320_AAAVAX benson_n_Page_037.QC.jpg
e25d05670751d1ea6251dfc0bc983bb5
8258655f820ca53d6ef0981c550cb1fa55ec1399
46874 F20110320_AAAUVR benson_n_Page_061.pro
fda257d1ba6fa583c414c1df0dc8fe38
4682f53f47fa5aff240cd444135cc39d85c7f6f9
F20110320_AAAVCA benson_n_Page_007.tif
43b547b2eb94db7719c720b1870c44e8
d026f3553d33cb60a8130f2dfb66f4acce8c0e2a
23670 F20110320_AAAVZJ benson_n_Page_087thm.jpg
229e630a878fc25ec904049c74bd8d16
eb3e80896935fa794ef37471cdf578a11c573f6b
24933 F20110320_AAAVYU benson_n_Page_064thm.jpg
40e7a62789117566144069b35eb20974
b6ae6b78764ebce82a47d7fef289cb6af02667b2
F20110320_AAAVBN benson_n_Page_136.tif
a9ac90cc48ccaed5fba6c88478755667
13bcea22027f22035a79af769cdc9114b0cd1305
2094 F20110320_AAAUWH benson_n_Page_125.txt
9940d9af4471a3681ce67194be945d59
b2aebf0c0d1132b9181e716ec5e877bfe5ee4b4a
56563 F20110320_AAAVAY benson_n_Page_095.QC.jpg
2ab9c357f1835797bbf464c6747ec486
3ae5fcc24fcfa9707641193b40be80775a4466ea
77020 F20110320_AAAUVS benson_n_Page_034.QC.jpg
75ace2a02ec936a5e53af1c6a213fd42
172bee97de84e1af1b0314f548c81a31aab56cff
28112 F20110320_AAAVCB benson_n_Page_116.pro
200b4b7932f99a90d06059540841f177
72840cb2845169ae565021da565c69b2cf816f32
24296 F20110320_AAAVYV benson_n_Page_068thm.jpg
3886c6ab6fa24d40f9747223e23f8599
e3993fbc7f1737f6f149b5276b109288470a7bc0
F20110320_AAAVBO benson_n_Page_102.tif
8bb491a60f35cb95c2003fac48a8dea1
8fab894c9f442a03cce369a1245d349e0ffc1eaa
23570 F20110320_AAAVAZ benson_n_Page_138thm.jpg
0b41d1492f7ed2269792a4486c616f5b
d034a4808a25e113c7fab1bf02795f45fa53ea3f
195022 F20110320_AAAUVT benson_n_Page_099.jpg
34b9b844d42a41afbeab6442d58434eb
c1237f319268963a3bf5c7b49fc1cef32ef37578
F20110320_AAAVCC benson_n_Page_122.txt
698637824fde033d8cd66c1f6619eec8
c9766ee3600f7a3ae9fc27005949545aee8591b7
19720 F20110320_AAAVZK benson_n_Page_092thm.jpg
7b10c1549ce228e66393b2f4d3a000b0
08bebef275f4fcc1910ba2763456cdae02228b91
23878 F20110320_AAAVYW benson_n_Page_069thm.jpg
96440f15a39caa25373a67873cf34ce3
9c7a78c02ad455c1ac90974240460208ac45da00
57103 F20110320_AAAVBP benson_n_Page_134.pro
4295b76f499a5b4a451e2a2ba8a04e29
7cf0ee92d66aef0a2c6ca7178fbbe672abcdccbf
89120 F20110320_AAAUWI benson_n_Page_108.jp2
9826f54d50117834e65613ceddaae847
8eed928448eea7d00e00a7f91c17207c80a77112
50445 F20110320_AAAUVU benson_n_Page_087.pro
81e31438370ec1e869e1efe4fbb7e0b1
dbb33cfa94792ef637235401f32ed13ae5a740f6
27292 F20110320_AAAVCD benson_n_Page_011.jp2
396736d6499ee4ad7a87b5f38a338921
38796aa34c7c89aeee608f129e122c43595d4f63
14935 F20110320_AAAVZL benson_n_Page_094thm.jpg
00847bd5b3c8acd4030a22f50c1d4856
11a456dcb7149e82d19e4460a1d30fc10366f05f
24629 F20110320_AAAVYX benson_n_Page_070thm.jpg
1c2e9f0f815cd11a47be9df6ad7d1787
09512f078e9e99e9f7f538897af4d9386ba73792
2037 F20110320_AAAVBQ benson_n_Page_050.txt
962756394df6e8afb1a1e1ad69fc513d
47fe26f0d0ed4e9fcd63df79249d21c8a9af3383
17241 F20110320_AAAUWJ benson_n_Page_091thm.jpg
1fdb1961bc6313ad3e4ed4c77a4122dc
6f74520e9e32a2a04227d3a2b1ef82068a47f123
181655 F20110320_AAAUVV benson_n_Page_105.jpg
61f588d7420ff0cdd7a5dc76eb16ba1c
d1c9e90fe89f7adcf633c4cb7a22d44b54f4e25a
105464 F20110320_AAAVCE benson_n_Page_065.jp2
c4494202224e6ff04ba45092976107b0
ff7f0c9925a30582b24d810f32f512751a5f421e
22592 F20110320_AAAVZM benson_n_Page_096thm.jpg
e15936c784c7b8915e0e0614fe717e50
8a6e817b667acfee8976714ebd555e0c42af97fa
25120 F20110320_AAAVYY benson_n_Page_071thm.jpg
5b25331616e8dde0337828b8e3efeeed
211720ea17fcbf29e37f92d967bd905ce4453d94
F20110320_AAAVBR benson_n_Page_087.tif
23ebbb251c1563945e42437b9dd06409
580fc991b76bf264e092d983bc2ff9318a0372f0
61045 F20110320_AAAUWK benson_n_Page_052.pro
47748dce6e50b6bd4fd5e826d22272ac
88f61b6776756e71e3de16a1012452683b60b232
171030 F20110320_AAAUVW benson_n_Page_108.jpg
b0af9c85edf399269aea4b7b1b5092b9
25bb21ae3fe251487d30d805aee742f00d40898a
F20110320_AAAVCF benson_n_Page_051.tif
92625e88912899507ec82b70d7b0d00a
7558ac963c15d5389cb8b63acc0e0a0645bbb0ea
15856 F20110320_AAAVZN benson_n_Page_097thm.jpg
341ed58a3103c590af27d911a07ea356
1af1153d853dc308068d40c6d230484f258bbf75
24275 F20110320_AAAVYZ benson_n_Page_072thm.jpg
033d61675ce8f391c4f4a205fcc4bad3
61e2544f07c9deb58c02b34812361b4a3625fa45
168199 F20110320_AAAUXA benson_n_Page_106.jpg
a7f5b3f48fff925fe74fc9a962f6633b
2c726aafbf7062036e966c2029cf28d1fe718ef2
2663 F20110320_AAAUWL benson_n_Page_133.txt
f1811b692069852a030aa2d52cfcfac5
64b15a69b05394835dd072ec409da34f3f887df7
2548 F20110320_AAAUVX benson_n_Page_139.txt
76c522cbdc32d6a87e152902cf2986c3
09019e58caec8b6f6c7165bdda30e534c9dde1d3
48042 F20110320_AAAVCG benson_n_Page_006thm.jpg
3e4a82d46c9a835c35206752a8b8d51e
6b3a3fcc1bb05f03b4b89a4fdecba767bdc34a7f
22635 F20110320_AAAVZO benson_n_Page_099thm.jpg
212be35642d700afc367cd98dc8b57d4
c70c395d7d59caa0b876055f0b16ba771b62d41f
85186 F20110320_AAAUXB benson_n_Page_140.QC.jpg
a6b6b6be331e4a0ff3964a21585017db
32ba56dad1954070a5bc9f00c3b949cf5736f2c4
39125 F20110320_AAAVBS benson_n_Page_010.pro
cec4655244eafd3a4edb3e11c6664eb8
0494f0205da26ee528984806d46892238c909382
72628 F20110320_AAAUWM benson_n_Page_038.QC.jpg
49fccc2ac5d3bc5938d44c3e02719d10
87d91987b3898625aed812d3335be3dfc7da67f2
25773 F20110320_AAAUVY benson_n_Page_054thm.jpg
301335f7dd0c61ef08bf70ba8058c576
5887830286158cffcf8045ab36a66fa6c56a5984
76898 F20110320_AAAVCH benson_n_Page_071.QC.jpg
e56abcb730bd983f5a76b4d3aa68a13a
2de8b628d77ae3f5252d599b8bd1c36ee505d577
23456 F20110320_AAAVZP benson_n_Page_103thm.jpg
083f6d045671e685006de284d80a72f1
42933fbde56663c397427f2c3ec84e8d02d215c0
23376 F20110320_AAAUXC benson_n_Page_055thm.jpg
1e592df7f3ee675abc2621869471521e
e9644163c543486aef5eaaa0cbf6bc6f189bfb72
52453 F20110320_AAAVBT benson_n_Page_026.pro
aca4cabdf4019e1fab3a2b4d6ef945a1
9789bf2886f9cb8969991149c3798781d6456c1b
225831 F20110320_AAAUWN benson_n_Page_032.jpg
c72aea84cfbfe4c15b15c56288b07a97
998afc5b428c082c381dd3584ec7351fa27266ca
47528 F20110320_AAAUVZ benson_n_Page_005thm.jpg
66be3b30014ee7cc533fe0d6eb9df587
a7496ec484b74daeed3ec3400bb9402183f03534
150218 F20110320_AAAVCI benson_n_Page_107.jpg
f272d5da6f5f4d04cc313c47578ff5d4
d747aed67a478701a0226b1751ed0988749e573d
27384 F20110320_AAAVZQ benson_n_Page_106thm.jpg
191d2258c43cea09449f242a10a9bf6c
f54a8da10119b93efd701011e7c79901995c4297
50343 F20110320_AAAUXD benson_n_Page_090.pro
5fef184c58a82aaa670aa1513d2de56f
5bec50898a70465d6f6b4cf3ac9e16dcbfcfce9a
56747 F20110320_AAAVBU benson_n_Page_143.jp2
02e78c0ccb8bf1c77e85bdea489d96e6
78b0aa2789da36637571d19d9da3f5676f5719f5
204908 F20110320_AAAUWO benson_n_Page_036.jpg
097562f51b69eeea0483bd3bdcd932a0
4df4db03a1c444295fbac832b766f14b474028ed
F20110320_AAAVCJ benson_n_Page_087.txt
b6615c0faae9be08214869c64b56f758
8fcb0ace2dea3df749c7320519c4170c11c7b603
20379 F20110320_AAAVZR benson_n_Page_108thm.jpg
c05e0f41a20ed355a8f0fc8411c1af84
a9eb62f1b1078687cad9d8b31ab9ac4229d918ca
192922 F20110320_AAAUXE benson_n_Page_111.jpg
b928b2880965aaf13040e843e7cdfbc7
f1782be53b6d75394808921c522b4ae5a7997e7f
31542 F20110320_AAAVBV benson_n_Page_104thm.jpg
5fc1672eddf7b7add6db6c4c2aa587a5
745e516b2f46587edae195abdc6459c8719ce645
237115 F20110320_AAAUWP benson_n_Page_137.jpg
f16ee49bf27c1cd4709d47e29d26c768
285a6d8bb5673a882e2e042ab2c97a84779dc928
11687 F20110320_AAAVCK benson_n_Page_094.pro
dc286d347269e90ce3a14fc449c189a1
92c93f0ef947098266b73033752b0e491c01dbb1
24571 F20110320_AAAVZS benson_n_Page_109thm.jpg
c22330fd732daf9785f09a4d39a640c8
6f87a44cf74487150006a23bafa2100bb5eca002
103533 F20110320_AAAUXF benson_n_Page_056.jp2
6e2c7e2408c51753fefbb6aece6fe1e6
d278ce22a91ee96c87f0ed1cd5b9855417111481
103895 F20110320_AAAVBW benson_n_Page_031.jp2
2cd606649267c5a0965079e244cab29c
a02ed6b7986b01a35345c98001fedd9020e412d3
206561 F20110320_AAAUWQ benson_n_Page_060.jpg
16e11e63fafa51a03f87b0c01b8e15dd
9db2f52a9779c98876f9036910aad6f5c4e96370
93555 F20110320_AAAVCL benson_n_Page_012.jp2
1db3712de3c35804a01a0478193ebc2a
d55b6686aaa562ea7c57adc4455b4a6081f8ecf1
22740 F20110320_AAAVZT benson_n_Page_111thm.jpg
d31a6f98b021dd8b77c69279493430b7
517298b5351b4a32941831a3cfd8531052d34e07
1949 F20110320_AAAUXG benson_n_Page_034.txt
162d4f918105e33f181ea85db9767a1d
2600e40922d0470671d86b155fef5212635b3e46
71011 F20110320_AAAVBX benson_n_Page_018.QC.jpg
e2a6baf2fb80b10759bdffe183c85cbb
f77e1d7868f7f943c2f8ed99dadc4340276bb3c9
F20110320_AAAUWR benson_n_Page_002.tif
c113115870fca313e8be3e7c97ef3220
c74d37cda7af545bc571d47b2aa74ae2f33f6b49
F20110320_AAAVDA benson_n_Page_032.tif
6e804f513b4eb81fca07c80dc87ad3e0
81b857b211b39582a8d23f2bf8142574fe0d9c0e
21728 F20110320_AAAVCM benson_n_Page_126thm.jpg
f1ece62b2129c1fffff21c2649cc9887
3c9d4a2d972f29d228cffd53b15f57f7717d502f
24090 F20110320_AAAVZU benson_n_Page_112thm.jpg
33048d7796196c3b6db806e8d681a575
3b3dd7314676ab70d7f710a642746c76f9091b17
16359 F20110320_AAAUXH benson_n_Page_003thm.jpg
4b1c11b65bcfdb060d4ef0fab7f84d67
9a39907c0ae93195d7006d26dc00f78dcdfdef59
233504 F20110320_AAAVBY benson_n_Page_008.jp2
dd313c396035adbadd6d53d17158dfcf
c6c31c82b055d09aefb3c085a45ce6996c9de8fa
104014 F20110320_AAAUWS benson_n_Page_043.jp2
9fbe0600313fd4ffbe9038bd450aca4f
355a4da8f538457cc2241c159d1522c130756b45
49663 F20110320_AAAVDB benson_n_Page_063.pro
6c25204a6e7575e65df782ece169e39b
821b4674945395cdf5f041899107074d740bea48
48421 F20110320_AAAVCN benson_n_Page_056.pro
55f8a2198763bc0b334fa38b02df0c2f
3ec4974731218c776f72243393733ba1ced9cf1f
20793 F20110320_AAAVZV benson_n_Page_115thm.jpg
fba3c147d2163b0a68bd1e83fca1bd41
da6d48f7b488fbe85567f4dc90ae1c76c0858520
F20110320_AAAUXI benson_n_Page_074.tif
021dec1cabfa68041cc278fde836b352
59f86980409db93c466b3634ef8a358deccfac9f
1978 F20110320_AAAVBZ benson_n_Page_112.txt
974952c8284c23cd5610925965c18ad8
f0617e15e610a6eec3e2f159fb65acbc1da01411
F20110320_AAAUWT benson_n_Page_106.tif
1e5c9b0666ff005819feb32c1c348a7c
c97a4f0132cf02e1d1aec9028ad8787cce52c45b
F20110320_AAAVDC benson_n_Page_127.txt
4494bdec136a0bb9a64b6761405ed820
71b34e5f1bca3fa114292593e79cfd9f2d17c61d
183597 F20110320_AAAVCO benson_n_Page_057.jpg
cbbaf0591de8e722557d1c1f846a1465
eeb76f9cbea1159973a35807bb95efc8e2fbd0f6
24738 F20110320_AAAVZW benson_n_Page_121thm.jpg
eee6a772c380e483371f2e9d2faef1ce
26d6fb93311785152827a1fb4d81656156d2a61f
24688 F20110320_AAAUWU benson_n_Page_060thm.jpg
84f47f2441f72f66e57a59e7745717f9
bfe079501d6b8d4181ee02e9f7434dc5d52ebea2
1898 F20110320_AAAVDD benson_n_Page_043.txt
817e4e13560763459caf3b94bad90336
0baec0dd64561f010728c98c28d1ea404a1a0dff
44438 F20110320_AAAVCP benson_n_Page_121.pro
ed0d8bd64aa9b19bc58f99b1ed5db49e
1c6b53c4c4d53bcb06e44e1ba61f43cbe0e404df
26046 F20110320_AAAVZX benson_n_Page_122thm.jpg
9b51ac417189f7bc5cc1eaa82db256c7
e3bde7282f82668a19257f3a55c0984d245e1d2c
25960 F20110320_AAAUXJ benson_n_Page_141thm.jpg
98acf9f96be36fdec6c353cf83bc50fd
8790594968b6a0f141e6f8cd57208659177f7b4c
F20110320_AAAUWV benson_n_Page_013.tif
aceddf77941829a7a143e549cd21c2ba
6d3991b3da2b76a13139a31b625d4f58ca9fec53
F20110320_AAAVDE benson_n_Page_082.tif
58325ebb0fb744295dafae1d48e74f99
8f9de46655f8f62a4c08ea988ef16c0f7178f7e4
F20110320_AAAVCQ benson_n_Page_028.tif
9e251c691f6c12e633c4e5de73e863db
3573bbe0477ca56a63310fbec0f92463457f1952
23065 F20110320_AAAVZY benson_n_Page_124thm.jpg
ab648f0ef9e5a9e781174c72d483b392
f4336c918520b6cd1e4e173c9672b23c05e3c299
2004 F20110320_AAAUXK benson_n_Page_025.txt
9619852054d735e2bcff9b25030c7aed
f94704d12a7a1f9a86b66bba5db95ed21828f490
31987 F20110320_AAAUWW benson_n_Page_131.QC.jpg
510f60db0a39adcf47a983b206ad8a53
bbf35271b2ee5805ec47762966ae480288fc0010
655273 F20110320_AAAVDF benson_n_Page_121.jp2
cb6c5a166e20a381fcaeba4fa36bfb46
2046e3eeb540864f327521781da0bfdc0f018dab
45191 F20110320_AAAVCR benson_n_Page_094.QC.jpg
f755881dd9e263676be70a14c142c1c9
c0a5d75fe9284ce8d19a9aaa21b76da1c28ffc41
21548 F20110320_AAAVZZ benson_n_Page_125thm.jpg
1fe2ee926b1b4fb70b6e09a509e1cba1
593b5a08c4a8148d1a77dcbd894c35e4bcd89649
1804 F20110320_AAAUXL benson_n_Page_073.txt
f8a7bb339ae02c69f58df3645049b926
250105e27f50344ed6abf394cf8c0875864a6664
105685 F20110320_AAAUWX benson_n_Page_006.QC.jpg
7bf7d28399df929a94b125d12dd8722f
b9691af52ab2d290328b0a850222b2aabeddb7bb
94216 F20110320_AAAVDG benson_n_Page_142.jp2
128ae269c4847ecffb43e38776e7bb4f
4b9b85ee99d22ae2855f492b61877df6d4f59078
1627 F20110320_AAAUYA benson_n_Page_092.txt
d8ecf468f5e4b88a2125aba923af38cc
99f097a4bed788edffd9e5f623c5dc4c0660fd81
44851 F20110320_AAAVCS benson_n_Page_122.pro
c1159ef19852dd0b66762458a24ec35a
ba121c4d3f30f8e83ed2de2ca1c609513319ba1d
25615 F20110320_AAAUXM benson_n_Page_027thm.jpg
6f5d90421d6fcff725e75ed3899f2f76
9e710fea7d305aba32864a3f565d54245930112d
111278 F20110320_AAAUWY benson_n_Page_112.jp2
a4bf7435c1e30082d2b6fd67600d5088
ebd7a8ff68978107bb649b28818d0d3893015aff
74683 F20110320_AAAVDH benson_n_Page_036.QC.jpg
0a877cf1e98baff0660dfabeeedb4ebb
d59a1e4754dda2874721de0cffee14ffe9baf68f
F20110320_AAAUYB benson_n_Page_035.tif
20c57900b8bb7bdd1ac784c789634b17
2b5aa401726b64558be2b7a74c08f7669991e6a3
49290 F20110320_AAAUXN benson_n_Page_048.pro
51c20198d77869595b6bd0a15f1c2c0c
144f4fad5bf9708407db7b8828936a87d38accaf
51270 F20110320_AAAUWZ benson_n_Page_003.QC.jpg
79c14f626ecc83fa84ce33dfa16d09a4
d764ee948dfad02421c88b7b6648a312f9cfb5d0
108145 F20110320_AAAVDI benson_n_Page_132.jp2
b939b62f0b35acab1e2d66cacbe733a5
2295f632e2832efa8c548e659af37cba4e2e68d6
144973 F20110320_AAAUYC benson_n_Page_133.jp2
958d5b2a05d9910a77cd76a0e4b2a57b
300fbdc4b4e4c6ebee952645d25f2019f7819a4e
1263 F20110320_AAAVCT benson_n_Page_003.txt
edcb58d83ad1d47eb7a5ebe8ecc42765
3ae44e01d6c4fe14fcf90b1cb8c4587e98a7caa7
F20110320_AAAUXO benson_n_Page_091.tif
580869a47f199144df1f001c96666823
776f987c875607252e961f72a62de27e51e38635
75335 F20110320_AAAVDJ benson_n_Page_136.QC.jpg
7f10672a2a65137ca2de855557a5a8d5
5631e7213b8916e393147a51664de9d72e77c21d
73594 F20110320_AAAUYD benson_n_Page_100.QC.jpg
4a5d5e25aee471d84c3ad08b37a6d86a
61cd2ea6a7f01c1a1f042b07972f8a65ec526bed
203729 F20110320_AAAVCU benson_n_Page_075.jpg
72fbca79da5af4eed466d4795fdd7aec
bea1d93f41831555650cf87b32b08ce2e3506fb8
207287 F20110320_AAAUXP benson_n_Page_034.jpg
3897b1ffe5003016a2ccdd1ab815d768
ba973f03c0489b12e4892c4c7838aeaa6a07eeb5
73910 F20110320_AAAVDK benson_n_Page_096.QC.jpg
8c6793f84ed9990ff313627d1c860349
5022b5894b410f8ab7f208015cc248141dd82114
F20110320_AAAUYE benson_n_Page_069.tif
dbee4a6136fbb481d34d4873bdf6fc16
b87bf5ece079da05d1f87899442a708653a85e34
182619 F20110320_AAAVCV benson_n_Page_015.jpg
4a6d8ffb89b4d77f8116d7dcdd9b0e53
858a1cb9af186727401292451c0443241e0093d4
50272 F20110320_AAAUXQ benson_n_Page_074.pro
31a5fe07a94697c8c108c7eaace649c7
f2ec44f17e72f0a06e4afb9820fe531d5fa1fdd0
1927 F20110320_AAAVDL benson_n_Page_017.txt
4fca7d78e1da77d3ebe052605ac8e207
8fecb22ab44eb62caa883f70df71ab899c947607
47997 F20110320_AAAUYF benson_n_Page_081.pro
3cdaa264b7336da351857a184d6e7f0a
8493cbf3c82f93e4b80bc35c5e2f6b12c75611e2
1900 F20110320_AAAVCW benson_n_Page_036.txt
ed9acb8750b7e96c4a9a38ac64b8f212
54794e471ef50e7175bd9dc88228e124df2081fa
49281 F20110320_AAAUXR benson_n_Page_088.pro
485b50728c0024d3f8f6498756dec83d
c3f3909efb20d6e7e529cd5d9ea3ef679c105209
73131 F20110320_AAAVEA benson_n_Page_081.QC.jpg
a6c84fe573c8859221dad58a94ebec50
3069b859dd2ed6c737fc4ee419080effa1a76365
1727 F20110320_AAAVDM benson_n_Page_021.txt
f7661258f83cc69d727273b4fbb4c8f9
e0d8a59337c29857e6e2f19559b4250017888920
F20110320_AAAUYG benson_n_Page_024.tif
410afc00a185b38518d6eb30478f9b46
1bcb63bbe009f2737260c204a875b127e8e26c25
F20110320_AAAVCX benson_n_Page_078.tif
b2f092197fe8fd8f065936a55dbc89a0
8b96936ef3598b715404e00f37b1511ec83ccf2e
109090 F20110320_AAAUXS benson_n_Page_014.jp2
8aba79ab3e323795ff4d7c792e572c02
d11307c38d26c677a1e26272c5f121f8945acbfc
51132 F20110320_AAAVEB benson_n_Page_009.QC.jpg
cfb7861ae6731a77c98eaa668ecaba2a
677db1c899140bcc1383d0622b28fdcb0f4e3cc3
46490 F20110320_AAAVDN benson_n_Page_096.pro
210d041473ca8348fa9e97c67bc67bd0
b8a0d157a99fe122f043c4c44e35a3f4fdcec736
23630 F20110320_AAAUYH benson_n_Page_030thm.jpg
8f0bbfaa1fee49908433aea8fe0cb1af
c25595e8f79c7daaa7d3820071662b2779a398bd
160586 F20110320_AAAVCY benson_n_Page_093.jpg
bf1c2e4cb834adade75a10458413dbd5
7f6b7d7fb9edad2433f34e667f66f53882d1f291
52095 F20110320_AAAUXT benson_n_Page_027.pro
d5744608e515caba8ef4422c2d88448a
14b7e3af386a39370284ddb25b17fade97de3b16
2566 F20110320_AAAVEC benson_n_Page_135.txt
3fe4a69d3648dec35c543472ae6533fc
a13a8ecc7061c0408fb31b65693aedb952e047f3
60240 F20110320_AAAVDO benson_n_Page_100.pro
717a3a798a237ffb8d8528b0e7415ef9
53996955f02bd1d4a3e58ac3a5f3fe21a3c8d32c
49732 F20110320_AAAUYI benson_n_Page_054.pro
cc0e485c69f990e4d8d41a1ec597a8da
fc193961bbe534356510c9d5046837a2d873d237
116 F20110320_AAAVCZ benson_n_Page_002.txt
fbf2d883fd0976e2e2bd234643fd5f28
c4a7fac0b77437fe4c0c83de3bd9b9ef9ee9925f
1841 F20110320_AAAUXU benson_n_Page_038.txt
db704a4bc58cad97cfb8cf9a5ab05087
47571c24e7a754fd146682f8dcce490a9d2af6e9
F20110320_AAAVED benson_n_Page_134.QC.jpg
0d1cacd112cc73879f29000fc5155412
1d3d9f412f5ceaab2d65285142594e05000d4f8e
71096 F20110320_AAAVDP benson_n_Page_111.QC.jpg
ea6a06a23c770ad885f9943141370742
9a1e15d78d33a6a4252d58ceb2c5b226f4deca53
211103 F20110320_AAAUYJ benson_n_Page_083.jpg
4dbdb6b5e4a4012c0991af105fc5eaa3
53b717ad374656febf17e7082f3c034c64646571
F20110320_AAAUXV benson_n_Page_143.tif
86bc77a03af7405f5e7d422065a9e4a9
119ad91b071b2d2721bde49774949871bbe49036
103598 F20110320_AAAVEE benson_n_Page_030.jp2
47cf7fcacdfa06111c5e50e93e3592f2
ae76f7c4bb3741c6432ca0a07ee1bfbfcf6bcac9
204410 F20110320_AAAVDQ benson_n_Page_049.jpg
ef7f8ed3b78cfb4ee863787dfca68405
c57301c22f1912d4017c2267b488053a11d59ef9
126967 F20110320_AAAUXW benson_n_Page_007.QC.jpg
94ee6bde34c4f33ef25b89f175c1f37c
ace633cb5e4da33d3c1e4f137f8289fd07af8dff
2050 F20110320_AAAVEF benson_n_Page_064.txt
773c18c0ff26dbc6b20c6153d839b941
2475bee6f2d6befb3549ffeafd967476d9d302c3
121835 F20110320_AAAVDR benson_n_Page_137.jp2
2b14ca177f20710c4c6d51ee2ffcb7a1
de0c8b7a9f6b3d2a5012ffe4d47f1cd172206a30
24399 F20110320_AAAUYK benson_n_Page_143.pro
7e28ed71a8b73676005aad49d462c3fa
dde8e6bfb7b916b0d6bc3158bbd11c5f0c14ab4c
95279 F20110320_AAAUXX benson_n_Page_057.jp2
01e323c99e8b453fcd0a207c32c76752
fa51137507913df36d82f3634fc9f2b894baa65a
33796 F20110320_AAAVEG benson_n_Page_119.pro
6b3f8c7f25b5a4a626d1d818f9662f07
481b9a71a9175e311b8a232d8fff6fb457cf0a85
23427 F20110320_AAAUZA benson_n_Page_081thm.jpg
bfecf6cf8bb4ff7de0b5eae9c4935ee8
4d3e24678b815debcce8e6d5f9e38ca5fb726b05
50273 F20110320_AAAVDS benson_n_Page_071.pro
3fca823d067f19c56dca8e4df3057b20
4da5050dd43e1868b9e1ecc06633def211eeb2cc
215694 F20110320_AAAUYL benson_n_Page_050.jpg
d77cb4e5286b4d84b1c62ed29a241af3
385d51ac2f67aaae8d888bc558d45c818c83f40d
1851 F20110320_AAAUXY benson_n_Page_096.txt
0a268b18e24a458e978225848ffdc6cb
4a4cf1a85b6c891b2b8ec0c467ee4f803fd6998c
109753 F20110320_AAAVEH benson_n_Page_059.jp2
b2c969e4447d91bd60a2797c775b8f23
34c54b16b392ffcb5972a2fb0374517afb1ab49e
2041 F20110320_AAAUZB benson_n_Page_086.txt
dbd372d87c2cd2e58071e92136f0230b
f7bd0a99dd55c943a6336c7ccfd85cdf589755fb
215541 F20110320_AAAVDT benson_n_Page_037.jpg
565a8f9b43ff18d5735354f6bec2d470
7d52388aac938022e5f368bcd914deee7808642a
141113 F20110320_AAAUYM benson_n_Page_121.jpg
b28d841a259f63da05760386370d6a32
a834628cdac48bc4355e9864198f92e6f69cf48b
75871 F20110320_AAAUXZ benson_n_Page_072.QC.jpg
48b044da26b021005f1e413e560f52e5
8d4909316461e79036e5cfdc58a752ff07b881b2
25986 F20110320_AAAVEI benson_n_Page_025thm.jpg
00b18cc9716369d7c634594c322131bd
7227d88e74b326fcfd1257bcbac5b3244daa50a6
101126 F20110320_AAAUZC benson_n_Page_111.jp2
a01f5e4c3b1920c40ec3ec2b678ef86e
ee618fd814b72e60f2d2a06fb071fcc3461259f8
F20110320_AAAUYN benson_n_Page_128.tif
d3ea7bee36710b4f9d887c3964b18394
53b15cd1bbc8fa3a30d31ebe942908d2c8510821
76277 F20110320_AAAVEJ benson_n_Page_085.QC.jpg
37946a1fd4bcb7393d3f0b97dd623db6
09d91ec3f3447cd481c94769155488c48b0e1c9e
77018 F20110320_AAAUZD benson_n_Page_058.QC.jpg
9783fdb7f621589d8cb689d563455870
d24419fd5b3ff44a6f4dc21b7044b8c2f5b7b870
50679 F20110320_AAAVDU benson_n_Page_059.pro
8ba66c2599ed294da924a9077f41bc39
34e5364b5f41d487fda554c1b88931808b9348e7
102370 F20110320_AAAUYO benson_n_Page_080.jp2
66f95c5612aa9cb8e5e6f2e0ef5eaffd
1bb4272d1e0f0342cdb7026ac8a50e9528f41e2a
22998 F20110320_AAAVEK benson_n_Page_066thm.jpg
46d893143405bd6bec131f0f0a2d7f93
dbf83cf8293b6ec687f282c56f50394d1d6e1348
26015 F20110320_AAAUZE benson_n_Page_050thm.jpg
bf9dd1102218e2ac76d2845015103149
f6417e24df0ede36dd00fda9ce5f7ad98bdb15b1
93162 F20110320_AAAVDV benson_n_Page_119.jpg
9559412b1517c3a06a1a42ff40191269
9680673f5633892cc3e47aa3080a5291bb3b005c
F20110320_AAAUYP benson_n_Page_075.tif
b92775a4085e80912123cd0cf5c1073a
979d3be1c54602f6ccda4d698ec216a3bc75b43f
23787 F20110320_AAAVEL benson_n_Page_022thm.jpg
9d23d45098bf15300f22755acfbb3590
7402656bd91fd0cb6c5d977ac82e9d5a1c76acd4
F20110320_AAAUZF benson_n_Page_142.tif
501404d9a9f21d204e2f0b64d5be2184
d621f73309d4982925185e50c45c25f1f71d3c77
F20110320_AAAVDW benson_n_Page_055.tif
00a0d521929afe3f376b315e0be4d1f3
e9aa9d0da575d40f37efa1f5bc06528578e204cc
80214 F20110320_AAAUYQ benson_n_Page_113.QC.jpg
806d7e5c94612017557e0808975c56e0
47597bbf75e75a07e20646d27c4c82581811f27b
123916 F20110320_AAAVEM benson_n_Page_097.jpg
e517b854177586a57c82b3f71edb09fd
d37ab637c22e14a6b9666e80c78f0cfc7c997e5c
25119 F20110320_AAAUZG benson_n_Page_135thm.jpg
4b6dfe08bac99f7a4420787b86ef9880
7d63a1abd1503d11fcc006196b3091db134b8f87
3148 F20110320_AAAVDX benson_n_Page_005.txt
cb51f46f49ab96691f82ba7beb7da0e8
ad4a04748d375c511027b6a3e76402e60f58bdc9
137251 F20110320_AAAUYR benson_n_Page_135.jp2
84abf45a6bb42064b7142ccb81c4c928
7e858ff620ac3b8c62c07d1b919d18340c3d1fb0
F20110320_AAAVFA benson_n_Page_046.tif
e2bfc8766b71ece5dbfc8b47d29a7a6f
4540df30ab72a09cf0c0a6209384f20790ad9cdc
983407 F20110320_AAAVEN benson_n_Page_102.jp2
576b12ea9a15edf196e7e3ddfa929b8a
faf3ac2749572ed0e1b3fb8b0454ff3ee64b8aad
F20110320_AAAUZH benson_n_Page_140.tif
c9e9a52d43db80ddea98aab864375089
fbb13977ec25b5e08691f03801cfd20a227b38d1
64423 F20110320_AAAVDY benson_n_Page_098.QC.jpg
070c319c2f0cac47007d8d5c1a228c1b
acd6bc7b68cc8e4a3b7dea6d59deeaf60a7e43fd
F20110320_AAAUYS benson_n_Page_003.tif
daaeef0311b189dfbfeffd34fa0fd6c9
eb6c4059f181ab614f74e398ba65b5de65a348f1
6541 F20110320_AAAVFB benson_n_Page_093.pro
8b032bdfe9e6ece4d2f87e11550fb2bd
f9e3710c2a0a90735bca0180eb772125e84911e3
1877 F20110320_AAAVEO benson_n_Page_107.txt
e722be0d00543800a5e3752a1020f51b
1db51f8efee73ce205fa2cfed2a60d66d7494702
24961 F20110320_AAAUZI benson_n_Page_029thm.jpg
a24ee119f2611a3e74e6750b4dcf146b
0d3934101d06ff23a19530b7fd658d9754073deb
22252 F20110320_AAAVDZ benson_n_Page_015thm.jpg
e79f3eecba5439b7c892bb4c5f0b0bcf
2ad8826f60de49bae73ed307484f86ee4bec3b63
267789 F20110320_AAAUYT benson_n_Page_133.jpg
1cbd468a72c5868232a7ad18e7981a1e
c0eaee9f45478a56e463dad5958341eae4c4d2bc
70070 F20110320_AAAVFC benson_n_Page_041.QC.jpg
1fad86ee14d973495ce30ff06b4b8d08
2a35e9f83b0dbea631d67be64af5d0d70988fdaf
920911 F20110320_AAAVEP benson_n_Page_105.jp2
a36d17c2bea03248b93d64c2221cc094
27953ee1d636aab1bb4119efc95da8a2e9c2b412
104908 F20110320_AAAUZJ benson_n_Page_058.jp2
e3f88e36a9beb0651d1ed6e023537c31
9ec6e208dc71aebae338d873fad9e1f576d87175
50494 F20110320_AAAUYU benson_n_Page_014.pro
2d29f1a46b1d29024c8ffa5987d991f2
b9258227b6ca75572ff43208c455c4d1d2622f19
49828 F20110320_AAAVFD benson_n_Page_016.pro
109bec7634006cc54a2a0b3c79b8142f
12ed4cc04ae57b580a03bd420343b656ca957360
F20110320_AAAVEQ benson_n_Page_001.tif
ca95b47088833e77c3deffe4ef4adf6d
f9df10c242fd7e3c82e99f198cefc2de5ac539a4
3195 F20110320_AAAUZK benson_n_Page_002thm.jpg
ef65a7754e73b87c4d0a42f1f56afe1e
28c37d618ea06a8547c8680a08697571791b2917
969032 F20110320_AAAUYV benson_n.pdf
64b4e26999df6fcfa776ef798118735b
402ae15ffdfce5c85de292aa0dc930bd03a5d30c
64306 F20110320_AAAVFE benson_n_Page_001.jpg
98562771036aaf594423e6fcf5a77f51
a9d81c9113b52d121fbd67fd20810e4a4f1d79b6
112716 F20110320_AAAVER benson_n_Page_027.jp2
894ba6794e72f58085df1096b7111710
06338d9784530ef5f4b256433f1dda45c5d051be
23644 F20110320_AAAUYW benson_n_Page_062thm.jpg
6c644214bb91974244e56496fff721e0
6f4e217e606d02a60de62320c8c5f1299aa777e8
54333 F20110320_AAAVFF benson_n_Page_097.jp2
15060e575f387360d7ad12ef173d7b4b
aedc1f48745bf4f4ca18a75139bf38d87de3cd00
106756 F20110320_AAAVES benson_n_Page_060.jp2
f398dd0a0be5660cb754629cda6665db
8ed881a02c9dbd756bc14b955757e71fcfb32ce7
101099 F20110320_AAAUZL benson_n_Page_084.jp2
740151988a69f651efaadb0c1da3db84
3c02e2aeacd7b6f35d5bf0f0e837e00924c29972
60622 F20110320_AAAUYX benson_n_Page_122.QC.jpg
04f44fcb9d726985537c85ede227d7de
48d8ca51568ca145bbb4c0d9e0e73bef985838af
F20110320_AAAVFG benson_n_Page_067.tif
f2a19c28061ffd7eec46be111dafbdec
ae7e6b82642866cca4c1427f4f7daf7558abc33d
21085 F20110320_AAAVET benson_n_Page_132thm.jpg
2b5f5fbd0516ee5eb9f38c8f0a8c469f
201ad75c4a8862028d8d796d9fee8afdf6da2ed5
198686 F20110320_AAAUZM benson_n_Page_056.jpg
1ccaf6879e989117165e10cb70c7495f
26dbcaaa6b6718d4b93a8f8e01ebb58cfa948222
28349 F20110320_AAAUYY benson_n_Page_001.jp2
dfc6317564c7323d47681a7ffe9bf44b
a6cda8c42b0a9c8ce0ad0e13071ca2c59626b051
F20110320_AAAVFH benson_n_Page_070.tif
e17fa8382ad9962a0725e5586490d286
3f7763e14a0d06dacfc7064e7898c0cf372c28dd
2023 F20110320_AAAVEU benson_n_Page_039.txt
da33c5a2dfb350eaa58e81d6d55430bd
09121a0e9de64f757dd8b6161bbab7a263cbcb98
1889 F20110320_AAAUZN benson_n_Page_031.txt
c7f5559616a05ddd1ea6494353383745
e5be06614f8fc3c59cc6d2606ee7a211cf910f77
59523 F20110320_AAAUYZ benson_n_Page_124.pro
c2862852b8b7cabc01bbc6a912f787d9
a883b09fa64b1b6fd3a989edc2ca09522ce92056
106382 F20110320_AAAVFI benson_n_Page_067.jp2
adb349dd145bb0154c1983191a07661b
467602eba0d3e56daceee1ac0a06184640219b43
19647 F20110320_AAAUZO benson_n_Page_119thm.jpg
7514eadc1765fe7495a7399121151053
6804d0544db20245306cd7082071987bc337f50c
78976 F20110320_AAAVFJ benson_n_Page_053.QC.jpg
67c30e302660f0cda8d41c2717a0863f
f49bf786427277a0ab5057354fbc8d28ccf0e961
106071 F20110320_AAAVEV benson_n_Page_049.jp2
6dc786998c0f593bf1b3262d4e5c4649
377005c8acda1435107c37f8d0419850de34133e
1980 F20110320_AAAUZP benson_n_Page_071.txt
4e9de743a247c1e19c61ccc75d5f6751
0041a788281677426f483b6588e9d199a856c1bb
43587 F20110320_AAAVFK benson_n_Page_057.pro
5be2387a7d1f9fe5a7e9e840ec377c18
400de48e8e97be0a6873f10dc20d03950cc682b9
19511 F20110320_AAAVEW benson_n_Page_118thm.jpg
1ea4ba29d67c8fe26e4e0a90f7f82ef6
352a74830d07160fd7db3ead94f69013ba14f369
1726 F20110320_AAAUZQ benson_n_Page_108.txt
f0d403761853e9bdc7623f3a68e1454b
a5b594e28f17cab607ecf3680247f3d0a921d779
18888 F20110320_AAAVFL benson_n_Page_123thm.jpg
6e8b2f8bf63055b846e7d2ea9e1c636e
9877b714ade7508085da55f6c842ff8ad1b30584
565 F20110320_AAAUZR benson_n_Page_078.txt
9e885521fc1a07a81bb5bd5f745ca2ec
666e213c6ce83d2315c4b8144e9466229b2ca2c8
F20110320_AAAVGA benson_n_Page_080.tif
d9e6482ea8771d3d9f168555dde50deb
f1ca3ab9b22253d9acd1e36cb53ee22e47d04216
110853 F20110320_AAAVFM benson_n_Page_086.jp2
48deb2d7abdf0d6a26f90a74f1de4a30
d2cad42c36056435c44aefcdd4e941fd86a77cca
76685 F20110320_AAAVEX benson_n_Page_042.QC.jpg
cd9598da11fded1862c918a76eca4ef8
258d70aebbd52c6a68fc145cf81f54d4f4fdf92d
23030 F20110320_AAAUZS benson_n_Page_021thm.jpg
052aca68a1b04c722c2fbebfa4d88ab7
014c10d7be5782f5b7cd64d8f58d02c495fd6b20
1753 F20110320_AAAVGB benson_n_Page_142.txt
8bffa9b50c4aae200ef2d268b31c5444
459642a70920918b1bad3d4670f3f9e04f9488eb
199266 F20110320_AAAVFN benson_n_Page_110.jpg
bf43fd6ea1818942cabfcf071c397cce
59f7f41d23cb12781a2bdc7952c69a5dc38e72e6
47745 F20110320_AAAVEY benson_n_Page_043.pro
b60e5f7d22642e1c0e208266470e591a
ed2e24cc84dc575da1c2b068dcfc384a48c14cad
209224 F20110320_AAAUZT benson_n_Page_090.jpg
d7480e4448f3bd3ab1c951574695c2c3
10162577c2060fd7ce27652df3736ed1f9a700d1
103955 F20110320_AAAVGC benson_n_Page_061.jp2
2ccbfd88925882d36d0098948f7a9ba5
770c8aaa1f6fa1e775e0dee3a72e7f35293da4a2
59614 F20110320_AAAVFO benson_n_Page_008.jpg
56c14ea8220d55f4f5b1405b37608d88
8b064149ce52ee954914ba7b2b4b3a3d49a43d84
438078 F20110320_AAAVEZ benson_n_Page_116.jp2
f905d4d791b0b3920f694d214ce4e68f
632ff77d52541324f23ddbbfce584bbd74a7020d
48011 F20110320_AAAUZU benson_n_Page_075.pro
9f181eb8dcb0066a3d1c9528eef320a8
ab99c1dabdf6b044b8342211fdacae45602d13be
50060 F20110320_AAAVGD benson_n_Page_020.pro
20df94cd9f821bacdf5782fe001656bc
2590bdcd6c00775b7db3cf9166bb4772be2ef902
76431 F20110320_AAAVFP benson_n_Page_067.QC.jpg
a0400a816c85677cc00fff7b4c8ba8bd
60ea5d5183dc2c20e0f91cb57c244fa4388d13e2
24636 F20110320_AAAUZV benson_n_Page_023thm.jpg
4247bce5ad8117ecb6897d5a2dacd622
655966a59870f97a9c9b126f7d6d1bff5b1087a1
F20110320_AAAVGE benson_n_Page_102.txt
0d1ca259d88f7d2090a80b27ad789b29
66c85b4611e3a41f4f597c0ef716cfa355b26672
215436 F20110320_AAAVFQ benson_n_Page_027.jpg
8804df2fbd3290efdd6804849b6cc9de
97ce75bae031a505409c9b1b2e93fb40c321e1c6
218434 F20110320_AAAUZW benson_n_Page_125.jpg
80762f7235fe66a45808ea40a77a5ea3
30276301faed05e5ca967d2eb9eb0f03c1209039
F20110320_AAAVGF benson_n_Page_019.tif
4e44e60a33055f46fc6d7aa652d62f30
29d5df13684bd40e5a35a8063e7fb82cfe845cbe
211050 F20110320_AAAVFR benson_n_Page_101.jpg
d29980ddefe55b4cedde998b874f7f9e
18d0916a5a7dbcc30ebb4c09707fc411a9e39c92
211848 F20110320_AAAUZX benson_n_Page_028.jpg
966171470728a9b84e463eb37a89548e
316b1c42fcf42100149af082608cb1fb56bc34f4
24706 F20110320_AAAVGG benson_n_Page_017thm.jpg
5a89a8b4d7a2547ede27bb1a20c36734
03a520b88866e1ed5566bcd30bcd5363dedc391c
25419 F20110320_AAAVFS benson_n_Page_037thm.jpg
b867cfbb4fea931878aa836eb381a0f5
290862337507e1e782e93a181aaabbd029a9e048
F20110320_AAAUZY benson_n_Page_030.txt
2de76fc35caaea30cbe6da8633169905
69dd688a18348630ce9d5b6768c6a2b0ed288890
25130 F20110320_AAAVGH benson_n_Page_086thm.jpg
977664a68bcf857289b445f1ea4ca04c
19418da9252230f18c189e1dad880eeda9364b8f
F20110320_AAAVFT benson_n_Page_110.tif
5bf54304257a29f58a399997b0d58e84
93995ca33ab9c4d52116f78353b81e877d4433c6
205876 F20110320_AAAUZZ benson_n_Page_082.jpg
2d6c318ee645d15130232f72ce9b7d89
f86318c00a270fb256aa638b66b6e1010730736e
77000 F20110320_AAAVGI benson_n_Page_014.QC.jpg
a052ef62cdf3f159527d41c58a186934
54deb8ef15d23c99b0ccab6e72e3c2af85c3b1ac
83004 F20110320_AAAVFU benson_n_Page_101.QC.jpg
d547218d811df714e40c9e21607fb106
bada6ebab221fe08f06141bb2a732dddbab4dd70
38448 F20110320_AAAVGJ benson_n_Page_106.pro
6b61d9570fe611ae0b050cced83ac266
44cb65b83cf1a83216c0078d4f01818eea0d135d
205456 F20110320_AAAVFV benson_n_Page_017.jpg
789229d29b03d8adc98002204788174e
6c5f3211a16cced2d27c747624100c9c37f8f0ed
256113 F20110320_AAAVGK benson_n_Page_052.jpg
250002278b572c140652c85c0b2412b1
3d87f9b367293064796b7b94a5533780f0003297
F20110320_AAAVGL benson_n_Page_020.tif
09645af33cb4563873e9d14071f855f3
37e6b7d0a0c5c659648fd6e051a71c08eaae6193
48474 F20110320_AAAVFW benson_n_Page_076.pro
c3b90d7722791a949384ee22f974ddee
12095e0ce2aa1074469d439b19f2ac927af56b15
2009 F20110320_AAAVGM benson_n_Page_045.txt
80cce45d0d677b4f1125bdc48aaddc95
7ed9dc3d16270e4bdc27111dea894c6cda0455ed
1814 F20110320_AAAVFX benson_n_Page_111.txt
a9767a30f234e28ae78b160eea4d1a4b
6a4a233448158995d44b22a0716b6b47ec444f51
76264 F20110320_AAAVHA benson_n_Page_048.QC.jpg
8459c73b51628f3048d1b6a1701afe40
3b140180ace98887edd01b3dc099a80b075dcecb
80142 F20110320_AAAVGN benson_n_Page_070.QC.jpg
ae6d1151c91edba38764377f5a151511
8f75cc8b1c4c50ab5deda1efbf7034df147a2a4b
106826 F20110320_AAAVFY benson_n_Page_016.jp2
385d890b7593ddca81935138c2292188
d4e9f0a7ee72e67034f9eb3fa65a5eefca3c6866
9629 F20110320_AAAVHB benson_n_Page_001.pro
e717c6982b3d1e4a9506533dab87bfb9
1e40ed30c5edc667dd0270f1e3045f59e9c6c760
110255 F20110320_AAAVGO benson_n_Page_064.jp2
df44d27f6c0c4c296ecd56651bc7ceca
8d61c22c227d92bc1f6703d52c4f6acbc241ee81
30580 F20110320_AAAVFZ benson_n_Page_003.pro
2f097221e3d7cc706f398fbc07422a75
e37e6747a2aeb20c3ee6a229ebf6b1e382a88a78
197781 F20110320_AAAVHC benson_n_Page_038.jpg
f29e0963b66047dddabb460490229915
da7ca3ec6b18365b744e3822f9c567c8787f7b0e
67919 F20110320_AAAVGP benson_n_Page_115.QC.jpg
0fb7567cc005b5d43e73085ccc4049a0
f05d34bf61a0d9b5b377b150f5182b61fc5f4ba9
165263 F20110320_AAAVHD UFE0009520_00001.mets
fcde5f8827eefee2e4bb63b2dbc46f22
8929fb36d5d368d23c57cde4e8a26e60574054d1
23957 F20110320_AAAVGQ benson_n_Page_093thm.jpg
699509127a20484a86cdaa5649f09c83
8d064e6433a5cdea42c8ebe5b7ff0e6b0f56d665
150278 F20110320_AAAVGR benson_n_Page_095.jpg
9c63a1148e3b717b4e2575a8e2d3c4e9
71cc0760cf14c618bcaa782672aea8a76971b197
68440 F20110320_AAAVGS benson_n_Page_012.QC.jpg
ee660639df9ce3074f2521d2511523e6
33391d77834559fb13ad8dc3d28c1628082b0f41
14970 F20110320_AAAVHG benson_n_Page_002.jpg
06c8c9dbec8afba14b48af710841b828
36936daae88c7a40aa5c6d9d5443402422951e9c
60283 F20110320_AAAVGT benson_n_Page_130.QC.jpg
fa24679e7adf4e8bd436830b4c5fcb1f
ba859ed5266558612d095a79a0628ebfcfc338a7
134038 F20110320_AAAVHH benson_n_Page_003.jpg
e96dd1c05e3337e679b3f23900f28e29
0e5cc3b11f272ea9b9b7c221e8d3e6820c309b77
54671 F20110320_AAAVGU benson_n_Page_007thm.jpg
d8254a3d6ed67eb5a95b98e7c191ef0d
991e9150d9d0198dcc90fb45cfda67d66b301881
283080 F20110320_AAAVHI benson_n_Page_005.jpg
4ca0045779eeab4b261a867743fbad0b
eace28520eb1e52ca12440a62e3f526ca9d62183
1920 F20110320_AAAVGV benson_n_Page_060.txt
a2afc3468366e30bdd3283f05cb59973
5a52f563fef95ff83ba399c5a0008cf511289f78
249915 F20110320_AAAVHJ benson_n_Page_006.jpg
f9a9097a85e1fd23472c6bcf34641487
1185adddf993152309dc2e0686d6ccb9faf95ff3
23764 F20110320_AAAVGW benson_n_Page_067thm.jpg
ad1320286abcc65209c36dd159b34837
6c8c4cc30c54f9904f1192141673aad7f27fd33e
322087 F20110320_AAAVHK benson_n_Page_007.jpg
029b9ee4adcaa924c7522ecb0306dcc1
8a8da2ac3831b84251e0ecd37631ffc5a677a523
99304 F20110320_AAAVHL benson_n_Page_009.jpg
cc55096a85f1d2e7a2621de1d7b95955
c59fb8066e6c2c21e3292f798715d82b10cd4a2b
410602 F20110320_AAAVGX benson_n_Page_120.jp2
1993768f0982c2d7e93510c846280bdd
57db2de32b9b2c729baec6075dc89142bf935b88
206311 F20110320_AAAVIA benson_n_Page_040.jpg
62f88224af2f48f50a7b9592ead1bd0b
f2652b777f0e917113b934f1e530abbc131a62ac
52465 F20110320_AAAVHM benson_n_Page_011.jpg
869bfb62171ba085d3b769d52d06d952
141814513a535922ceb5f2119f1a8137598aa805
F20110320_AAAVGY benson_n_Page_030.tif
ac9b67df89f323f820d4bc07b1fa3e8f
193479d3c82ba66c7652311b7ebbfb40807f6b47
193958 F20110320_AAAVIB benson_n_Page_041.jpg
b2008b197aec56dc1040f3d99414d08c
087da60b9a19ded71ce8de151c0391b119f46477
203845 F20110320_AAAVHN benson_n_Page_013.jpg
8699d16e7fe2db878b3d38d0ab41fe81
a276bf0f1cd7440445ea3c985de29895810e62bd
163275 F20110320_AAAVGZ benson_n_Page_092.jpg
44e3fcab9b3d9db49cb644a3610447e9
14334b4ffa86dde31a5b7e0fd275503a6b9a5aff
207916 F20110320_AAAVIC benson_n_Page_042.jpg
a9838fe05b6c59d13ead4f76f73f0896
c009632f6745f6e0287cd96ba7e6071f1ef8620c
211606 F20110320_AAAVHO benson_n_Page_014.jpg
169a6dfdbdad1af8edc146d164c40932
583f4f8830bd3bac473a2620a3cf9795c4094f4a
198215 F20110320_AAAVID benson_n_Page_043.jpg
952f4aced1958335c2451b6ddfa502e0
729e8804c358610a633d87bdbb2b47953534604f
199656 F20110320_AAAVHP benson_n_Page_016.jpg
3a3e3e7b136792cbf77766c4720f43a9
e205dce2a00e982ab6db79e6662ec2b70230cbc6
214020 F20110320_AAAVIE benson_n_Page_044.jpg
ceae68b3bc66346f3052a8038e27483d
9862957fd6730edcf6f2145db46c0ce0b3fcee6d
190122 F20110320_AAAVHQ benson_n_Page_019.jpg
f3b1f7f07a429b408f7d23262f5d81b2
812dfef6d7a57f5662afb62b8ff3d925db5d6bbc
210805 F20110320_AAAVIF benson_n_Page_045.jpg
460a9a323b6ee133ef99f54d1eb7dea5
cbe9b1557519b814b120735a24a4cc8fa49b6ec2
209438 F20110320_AAAVHR benson_n_Page_020.jpg
666f043d70d80e485a6738f7a383cbf4
83a0216990d76db28c3aa837fe6f026e42b24305
214778 F20110320_AAAVIG benson_n_Page_046.jpg
6559fbd53cb29637e928c9c85df6aea4
1063d64bf45da421f741aa2fd6a4af6ee4f479bd
187592 F20110320_AAAVHS benson_n_Page_021.jpg
c8033b128abd522d60e12b057a2b3315
6fded0a1caf5d1fe74c152c11b7602f39cb094bd
190767 F20110320_AAAVIH benson_n_Page_047.jpg
01f97642978c674437d690b7520e657f
585701e210bbe000609894dd1408f449e91a2d68
212779 F20110320_AAAVHT benson_n_Page_023.jpg
1e5ee4df1bcb449804763120db13c321
97a562c9202142fb46a0d4453ccf2f2042225bfe
204295 F20110320_AAAVII benson_n_Page_048.jpg
8d00a9aec6b82c08eedebda50f6eecd6
ce818c869c062c90a49c6d4c26e07c938bc62cca
209555 F20110320_AAAVHU benson_n_Page_024.jpg
35253545e7f19039ff3137b062b4da8b
d2744eadf0c544bfabdc8031ce28fe7577c08440
210874 F20110320_AAAVIJ benson_n_Page_051.jpg
86a0eebb30ba22136b5cb30a06f09ad6
b83d44634e7c671f61f647c9ee271a864fffeaac
216743 F20110320_AAAVHV benson_n_Page_026.jpg
f85cd6478e702ebb98625b28c043e6f9
07608d5ded6d9b6f4290795955a27585974dd407
213688 F20110320_AAAVIK benson_n_Page_053.jpg
23c70f038c2322e172f16e6344858d67
1de4856cce151b326b64264c61fa4aeb0c1e2548
216469 F20110320_AAAVHW benson_n_Page_029.jpg
5418cbd873956bd4e7e927b411c6b315
4eaef662cc75df81c0a72efd435ce149e720c2ac
210670 F20110320_AAAVIL benson_n_Page_054.jpg
9bc685b644e18247fd93ef195b286c7f
74ab09f00a99787941107a0b4e228007d7968806
198471 F20110320_AAAVHX benson_n_Page_031.jpg
2a17d363b9ce91c07f9c088d1fda9cdf
95fb9bece2e42c31f686049744f45ec5569efe27
191745 F20110320_AAAVJA benson_n_Page_080.jpg
d0e847a5953ac7e8c51daacf8484c90a
03bb61ff381735e59a1c319160d1ddf2d0b184fb
203050 F20110320_AAAVIM benson_n_Page_058.jpg
51677c46e61ef17396cb376c2dfa0cdc
36cdd8af9539be82d9a121c691de94446a7c6174
200753 F20110320_AAAVJB benson_n_Page_081.jpg
0c137d41aa7e278a5a797c763a2a9e02
5525ff3c71d3b2fa1c1be5dff9ac005ec043ce56
211899 F20110320_AAAVIN benson_n_Page_059.jpg
5fe610b0ef4993f074e749acffc1b8f6
200489883f34f96cd1c0718a8de285399e77774f
217004 F20110320_AAAVHY benson_n_Page_035.jpg
cf911486e4c764cad5cdd718c3fd049b
ba77a94198e609b4f3713ca0daece961518df34a
193722 F20110320_AAAVJC benson_n_Page_084.jpg
3597bfde3b420dd4bf6beb315ec841c9
23c93eb99dbf8f4f6ab29fccbacddde0120fc073
199558 F20110320_AAAVIO benson_n_Page_061.jpg
f7411f736d690146e5ec4efffb02b62d
c9481a70ce213c20d2171e506cef12a709c0bf76
218885 F20110320_AAAVHZ benson_n_Page_039.jpg
2ef5cc6fa49e8558fc12eab51a6707a7
a1cabd5faa3e5fb3b8dd0f2fc9abd5f50e329050
213734 F20110320_AAAVJD benson_n_Page_086.jpg
917d78870339ef6b0620334e072f7be0
fa9aa328ee1d6cfe30d2898022d69df59db900f5
207465 F20110320_AAAVIP benson_n_Page_063.jpg
835d293e30d3b9cf0cce922bd081a1c6
6b886b39c1b82aa53fac8bb75898798560cd4222
204980 F20110320_AAAVJE benson_n_Page_087.jpg
20c9ef403cfffc05f0c88d29509b3629
9d1908d06374c76671cfe347096e684e44437f2d
207700 F20110320_AAAVIQ benson_n_Page_065.jpg
b560a986c3d50ad2c623d53bad57fa08
f46ca9d44c90a1d080e165f6a53848f84ce1100b
208034 F20110320_AAAVJF benson_n_Page_088.jpg
7bfd695045a6251d4e04a00895a310d2
cb2dc82d99cb36835251beabe7455dd1fe92b398
187748 F20110320_AAAVIR benson_n_Page_066.jpg
6cd9e638ac9e48b28d28b1e0c76d2e0b
f42d344194f090e75e88f46fd43a153f88e98d26
208968 F20110320_AAAVJG benson_n_Page_089.jpg
4bae44af73f5d0fdf2e202e5bcdf4217
1ca22fac709a9726091502d5b3342a538c78a868
201667 F20110320_AAAVIS benson_n_Page_068.jpg
4b9c322231fa6da38d9e7c5c4467e93a
c420dc8be2c667c6fa85aae64a60ebd46aa5b0f4
136541 F20110320_AAAVJH benson_n_Page_091.jpg
5ff26c8fa27f94d9b4a0f2a0a45034ee
a9542b66a5772c1609ebd3dfc2e916e6c63c42cd
192836 F20110320_AAAVIT benson_n_Page_069.jpg
b66c0c936bd3eaefd2ddef88491fa628
5bd1433d9dfe5eeb179605e1e66465378cd94655
124966 F20110320_AAAVJI benson_n_Page_094.jpg
4e7f2cba51ea1219edd0d93669bfdaca
5286c0d49479330a08349ba25f84600678ddece3
206592 F20110320_AAAVIU benson_n_Page_071.jpg
88da4c538daa37f5c298491981d38554
8b7e39ebfb0e06de349b3241843aa706a66efe4f
194892 F20110320_AAAVJJ benson_n_Page_096.jpg
2fbcc100bad8d383fac4c64b42f4d973
c42616b640f366376dd4fa34bb5201bad2afc806
205424 F20110320_AAAVIV benson_n_Page_072.jpg
ba596b5eb327a8dfc36e241510607b2f
1916d8139ccfc64d7199e0a33f04d86700ba655f
169708 F20110320_AAAVJK benson_n_Page_098.jpg
075457979c218b3aab458288863d1ca3
c74fb5fd5dcdad90b25e01c31d6791cfd5ed7601
189181 F20110320_AAAVIW benson_n_Page_073.jpg
49bba286d579872f8c88c7eac1e20c99
98316c1e3b49adbda5cf1cf17730b9d4f9dd0262
244755 F20110320_AAAVJL benson_n_Page_100.jpg
1729f5a6f64e257ef0d1f513e3aa8cec
b8e383be6b3cf568e353f576aa6e7495553ca4fe
204499 F20110320_AAAVIX benson_n_Page_076.jpg
9959aa932fa37919c884790de7a52ee3
0033a3ecd8ea50d7be7715f11bd07d7f0f0eb758
198438 F20110320_AAAVJM benson_n_Page_104.jpg
4d6c46e5ccfc5a95f420f104649229d3
6a9ed31f08f5a1717c7fd472a677587ba74c56b5
55539 F20110320_AAAVIY benson_n_Page_078.jpg
6cd9d457f3cb92fd362f653a55fb1a80
9a7dc55ec16be68c1b50316189db76cf2b76252f
266464 F20110320_AAAVKA benson_n_Page_138.jpg
b4bdc223126f654269eb2b66217f713e
f05e6745c2889a3093311f25e0ac1de78992e14d
209739 F20110320_AAAVJN benson_n_Page_109.jpg
5b52cfea79e7e7e211ec71ff9e0bdb84
a49bdbe1111db1a310db084cace07e89ff6c42b5
274740 F20110320_AAAVKB benson_n_Page_139.jpg
9df54a4ca856850ae1e3cf3e1b41163a
f4ebec1e5b99e16f20b7daf0720ea6ea996f1670
216966 F20110320_AAAVJO benson_n_Page_113.jpg
a1ec487513c7d6ee298f91dfb111c5a5
389ce4f6dcf81f96210e1708d1bb46a2049757e5
173204 F20110320_AAAVIZ benson_n_Page_079.jpg
3b577807f3caf37d3bb210f5c635cb39
ba7b91dbcc8a9b894aef59de7b8d4f01b3c70d40
271724 F20110320_AAAVKC benson_n_Page_140.jpg
f534123fe390f5fd0fead1e19d49ad5f
47db0087ba065e82f18447e8f2c1f29d580124b9
208728 F20110320_AAAVJP benson_n_Page_114.jpg
33f3489464cbbedba3bf40d7850a1a37
c4262a854e496cd642607d9776a1d41cae3ce29e
184702 F20110320_AAAVKD benson_n_Page_142.jpg
9b5881b00ef99b4f5d3035cbc60c3b37
3e8dfb0d3aa89d74be85f2e3c3beb96f7c060bbe
102296 F20110320_AAAVJQ benson_n_Page_116.jpg
2c87d05163891a5a9de25e5347bfb605
d21213227d34c41a30552bd050d8e0bec94dbf84
5812 F20110320_AAAVKE benson_n_Page_002.jp2
7c7e3e10d029bb938f3ce9872f8ed5b6
169bb95adfa8654caaa1f584cf9afbd759ffae98
71229 F20110320_AAAVJR benson_n_Page_117.jpg
07789397f37ef7fc033397a9bae0fea5
f8ec8e4a52e6d3f7267fc684f911185aebb5b71e
1051977 F20110320_AAAVKF benson_n_Page_004.jp2
fc15d80c6d071509edfd8e84a04950c9
694f741fe738d1e5d18df8f7c3018fd1022909a4
93527 F20110320_AAAVJS benson_n_Page_118.jpg
6a8e303b02f1458a26aedc0209a7e9f5
49f3c16224a004d4ccc1c1b3899683916cff5e05
1051978 F20110320_AAAVKG benson_n_Page_005.jp2
6b015c15754e114fc990910ef1c7cab8
0ba3d81b7f5495983888988ec236c9b642073fed
93496 F20110320_AAAVJT benson_n_Page_120.jpg
d90b239141ff577a83a90d50ccabbfe1
c5d807cb907cc71b730a702a6c665de40179c163
1051975 F20110320_AAAVKH benson_n_Page_006.jp2
7ab45393ee128949f125623bf8e12cfb
3de8042ef232fe465b1c38671a15759f5fde9fb5
192558 F20110320_AAAVJU benson_n_Page_123.jpg
5500a6dac1f01de23e6713309ef4b364
d4b4375d5442366ac582c891d8668d3d81d084c6
1051973 F20110320_AAAVKI benson_n_Page_007.jp2
8d49507e037f53197b70a57171f501ba
d624b079163f5395d0069bcfb040c0fa8157dbe3
538089 F20110320_AAAVKJ benson_n_Page_009.jp2
cc68c9ce1174abcfc0ba36e94b750d76
9d5433dc8f58c3ef3fa6271c7ccc6fd3fda7bd94
125177 F20110320_AAAVJV benson_n_Page_126.jpg
773d13befd57009f4f9ceca71a0fbc9e
27628b8ad11f6f8d6c1d9b201ce6f7d860385db3
107326 F20110320_AAAVKK benson_n_Page_013.jp2
123d41aa2afc7d6d8e024402679d0dd2
8243cd148b063ee7d2efce847bd8b1479489a8f4
111549 F20110320_AAAVJW benson_n_Page_128.jpg
ac474287865ff9f7d41d82af7d6b7f97
9687c7691bb4c365744a7b156ccad3634e47c8cd
107161 F20110320_AAAVKL benson_n_Page_017.jp2
654e7941450f9379dc6adb0bd0e52f6e
3e740ba995f2f9360dec5b03e34665d7d4265b52
196966 F20110320_AAAVJX benson_n_Page_132.jpg
f3eec5623087275b0f94702216d3bc47
f301f77dff1462008a888a3046c8eb07f73602aa
108759 F20110320_AAAVLA benson_n_Page_044.jp2
03d1ead31f9da0b48123d9d6cdc29a75
87163cb7b5c684056cd409015deba19d4bf1ba74
98502 F20110320_AAAVKM benson_n_Page_018.jp2
31e9021da66108603057c0eb3b6cc018
5b01cb3788f8efaf25083c632f8d9bec86b9a035
250879 F20110320_AAAVJY benson_n_Page_134.jpg
e99c12d34370464aaa2ca6294178ed79
6d2459006c095938e94a4b8d3c95447aaa4184ec
109038 F20110320_AAAVLB benson_n_Page_045.jp2
3f78e234ff7ab835fde60b879ea2dc15
6ee7989de6e759f574da6c6f917d880852ff38df
97891 F20110320_AAAVKN benson_n_Page_021.jp2
1795e1beb7f9b0a44efd86b42c72755c
3930bede41baf66c4bfea35ed8caab3b8c3b3af7
235692 F20110320_AAAVJZ benson_n_Page_136.jpg
846680863302cfad44148080c6e317e4
e5c2a891ae52f7cbcbff9cb113fceaa285afbe8f
105090 F20110320_AAAVLC benson_n_Page_048.jp2
b1c395bebe79062b70916d85a22d6c8d
eca0bd077dbcff29bf244816405810eb01a3333f
104833 F20110320_AAAVKO benson_n_Page_022.jp2
cfd928b143f74be487bcb3866ee5b2b9
b0540f33e5f66e63f1330e5cb82b13facdd8e39e
112020 F20110320_AAAVLD benson_n_Page_053.jp2
9a6b00d4d68a1baa8472b61875abd1c2
47f7cc1b0cc3ddce99dea9798f63ef6c7f03cb2b
110352 F20110320_AAAVKP benson_n_Page_023.jp2
1b8e2ff2c446d4c87a60db4fb01e3b98
c2784d4b1fef25dfb984bad01a0400419f69c3f6
109948 F20110320_AAAVLE benson_n_Page_054.jp2
1d64c05434271179b109725724e3b682
f3bee964fd97d987ab517f359623396822d75978
107201 F20110320_AAAVKQ benson_n_Page_024.jp2
61eba6b7af26789e0b8736cb43dcf168
85e0d37a58f3c5e58051abca1832a1f4b458dcea


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0009520/00001

Material Information

Title: Cross-National Construct Equivalence of School-Age Children's Temperament Types as Measured by the Student Styles Questionnaire
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0009520:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0009520/00001

Material Information

Title: Cross-National Construct Equivalence of School-Age Children's Temperament Types as Measured by the Student Styles Questionnaire
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0009520:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












CROSS-NATIONAL CONSTRUCT EQUIVALENCE OF SCHOOL-AGE
CHILDREN'S TEMPERAMENT TYPES AS MEASURED BY THE STUDENT
STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE

















By

NICHOLAS F. BENSON


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Nicholas F. Benson















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my committee members. First,

this project would not have been possible without my dissertation chair, Dr. Thomas

Oakland. His interests in temperament and international outlook on psychology were

instrumental to the formulation of this project. His competencies as scholar and mentor

were instrumental to the completion of this project. I consider myself exceedingly

fortunate to have had the benefit of his guidance and expertise. Second, Dr. Mark

Shermis provided invaluable methodological guidance that enabled me to address the

proposed research questions. I am indebted to him for the methodological and statistical

knowledge I acquired under his tutelage. Third, I would like to thank Drs. Jennifer

Asmus and Phillip Clark for their commitment to serve on my committee and their

contributions to this project. I also would like to acknowledge my family and the

importance of their love. In particular, I would like to thank my wife Grace for

affectionately sharing advice and offering encouragement. At last, I would be remiss not

to thank my children for the joy they bring to my life.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................. ......................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ ix

A B STR A C T ................................................. ..................................... .. x

CHAPTER

1 IN TRODU CTION ................................................. ...... .................

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................ ......................... 4

Description and Delimitation of Temperament ..........................................................4
Ancient Perspectives on Temperam ent ............................................. ............... 7
Hippocrates .................................... ................................ .........7
G alen ...................................... ................................... ................ 8
Immanuel Kant .................................... ............................... ........ 8
E astern S ch o lars ................................................... ................ .. 9
M odem Perspectives on Temperam ent ........................................... ............... 10
W undt's Typology ................................................ ........ .. ............ 10
Jungian Typology ............................................. .. ...... ............... ... 10
Personal D isposition Theory ........................................ .......... ............... 12
T ra it T h e o rists ............................................................................................... 1 3
G oodness-of-Fit T heory ............................................... ............ ............... 18
B biological A approaches ............................................... ............................. 22
M yers/Briggs Type Theory ........................................ ........................... 27
K eirsian T h eory .................................................................................. 2 8
S SQ T theory ................................................................................. ..... 30
Trait Theory and Type Theory Relationships ............................................. 40
Practical Uses of Temperament Concepts ...................................... ............... 42
E d u c atio n ................................................... ................ 4 4
V locations ............... .................................. ........... .. .. .. ...............47
Considerations in the Generalizability of Temperamental Constructs.....................48
Develop mental Considerations..................................................................... 48
G ender C considerations ............................................... ............................. 50
C cultural C considerations .............................................. ..... ....................... 50









M e a su rem en t ......................................................................................5 7
P sy ch logical T ests .............................. ........................ .. ........ .... ............57
V a lid ity .....................................................................................................5 8
T e st A d ap tatio n ............................................................................................. 5 9
Purpose of the Study ............... ................. ........................ .... ...... 66
R research Q u estion s........... .................................................................. ........ .. .... .. 67

3 M E T H O D S ........................................................................................................... 6 8

P a rtic ip a n ts ........................................................................................................... 6 8
Instrumentation ............... ......... .......................69
Procedure .............. ...... ......................................... ..... ...... ........ 71
Data Analysis Procedures ............... ......... ....... ........72
Factor Analysi s ............................. ...............74
Multidimensional Scaling and Cluster Analysis ..................................... 75
Covariance Structure Analysis Techniques ................... ...............76
Data Analysis Procedures used for the Present Study ................ ...............77

4 R E S U L T S ............................................................................. 8 1

5 D IS C U S S IO N ...................... .. ............. .. ................................................9 7

Im plications .........................................99
Cross-National Implications .......................................... 99
Methodological Implications ........................................................99
Test Validity Implications ..................... ........... ........................ ............. 101
Limitations ..............................................................103
D directions for Future R research .......................................................... .......................103

APPENDIX

A LISTING OF PARCEL ITEM S ........................................................ 105

B STANDARDIZED REGRESSION WEIGHTS AND LATENT FACTOR
CORRELATIONS FOR THE PARCEL MODEL ................ ................106

C CONTENT OF M ODIFIED PARCELS ....................... ...... .............. ..............112

D STANDARDIZED REGRESSION WEIGHTS AND LATENT FACTOR
CORRELATIONS FOR THE MODIFIED MODEL ................. ...... ..........115

LIST OF REFERENCES .. ................................. ...... ..............................121

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...................................................................... .. ............. 132
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Temperament categories proposed by Thomas and Chess...................................21

2-2 Temperament constellations proposed by Thomas and Chess..............................22

2-3 Important conceptual differences between trait and type theories.........................41

4-1 Comparison of fit for the parcel model .... ......... ............... ..............90

4-2 Fit of the parcel model, multi-country analysis....................................................91

4-3 Comparison of fit for the modified model. .......... .............................................93

4-4 Fit of the modified model, multi- country analysis................................................ 94

4-5 Fit for identified three-factor models. ........................................... ............... 95

4-6 Fit for identified hierarchical m odels ..................................................................... 96

4-7 Com prison of com peting m odels....................................... ......................... 96

A-i Parcel items for El (extroverted-introverted) ........................ ............................ 105

A-2 Parcel items for PM (practical-imaginative) .......... ....... .............. .. 105

A-3 Parcel items for TF (thinking-feeling). ...................................... ............... 105

A-4 Parcel item s for OL (organized-flexible). ........................................ ...................105

B-1 Standardized regression weights for the Australian sample................................106

B-2 Standardized regression weights for the Chinese sample. .....................................107

B-3 Standardized regression weights for the Costa Rican sample .............................107

B-4 Standardized regression weights for the Gazan sample......................................108

B-5 Standardized regression weights for the Nigerian sample. ...................................108

B-6 Standardized regression weights for the Philippine sample..............................109









B-7 Standardized regression weights for the USA sample. ........................................109

B-8 Standardized regression weights for the Zimbabwe sample. ...............................110

B-9 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Australian sample.................10

B-10 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Chinese sample.....................10

B-11 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Costa Rican sample..............110

B-12 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Gaza sample.........................111

B-13 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Nigerian sample. ..................111

B-14 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Philippine sample .................11

B-15 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the USA sample. ............... 11.......111

B-16 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Zimbabwe sample. ................111

D-1 Standardized regression weights for the Australian sample...............................115

D-2 Standardized regression weights for the Chinese sample ....................................115

D-3 Standardized regression weights for the Costa Rican sample .............................116

D-4 Standardized regression weights for the Gazan sample ............ ................ 116

D-5 Standardized regression weights for the Nigerian sample. ...................................117

D-6 Standardized regression weights for the Philippine sample................................117

D-7 Standardized regression weights for the USA sample. ..........................118

D-8 Standardized regression weights for the Zimbabwe sample. ...............................118

D-9 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Australian sample.................18

D-10 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Chinese sample.....................19

D-11 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Costa Rican sample..............119

D-12 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Gaza sample........................119

D-13 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Nigerian sample. ....................119

D-14 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Philippine sample.................19









D-15 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the USA sample. ........................120

D-16 Correlations among the four bipolar styles for the Zimbabwe sample. ................120
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 K eirsian types and their derivation...................................... ......................... 30

4-1 Sixty-nine item Student Style's Questionnaire model. .........................................82

4-2 Parcel model .................................................83

4-3 Modified model. .......................................... ..................... 84

4-4 Three-factor m odel ............................................ ... .... ......... ... ...... 86

4-5 H hierarchical m odel. ......................................... .. .. ............. ......... 87

4-6 R rationale for analyses. .................................................................... ...................89















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

CROSS-NATIONAL CONSTRUCT EQUIVALENCE OF SCHOOL-AGE
CHILDREN'S TEMPERAMENT TYPES AS MEASURED BY THE STUDENT
STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE

By

Nicholas Benson

May 2005

Chairman: Thomas Oakland
Major Department: Educational Psychology

Interest in developing tests that can be used internationally has flourished in the last

few years. When developing tests for this purpose, it is important to establish cross-national

equivalence for the psychological constructs of interest. Measurement of temperament is an

important endeavor with international appeal. Information related to temperament can be

used to facilitate growth, guide important life decisions, improve individual performance,

promote the prevention and intervention of problem behavior, and foster social

relationships. Our study first reviewed historical perspectives on temperament constructs.

We then explored recent perspectives including type theory, trait theory, and biological

perspectives. Practical uses of temperament concepts, considerations in the generalizability

of temperament constructs, and measurement issues also were reviewed. Our study was

designed to examine the cross-national construct equivalence of school-aged children's

temperament types as measured by the Student Style's Questionnaire (SSQ). The SSQ is a









forced-choice self-report measure of children's temperament. Development of the SSQ was

driven by Jung's theory of temperament as augmented by Myers and Briggs. Results of our

study support the conclusion that the SSQ measures the same four bipolar dimensions or

styles among children from eight countries: Australia, China, Costa Rica, Gaza, Nigeria,

the Philippines, The United States, and Zimbabwe.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

People have attempted to describe and explain individual differences in behavior

throughout recorded history. The notion of individual differences is not necessarily

judgmental or pejorative. Humans are social creatures. Varied social roles are needed to

allow social groups to survive. No one behavioral style is best suited for all social roles.

Ironically, the notion of individual differences also implies the existence of

similarities. As noted by Bouchard (1996; p.24), an internationally recognized expert in

human behavior genetics, "The fact is that in spite of varying cultural content and

dramatic differences in behavioral expression, human beings are remarkably similar with

respect to their evolved psychological mechanisms." Bouchard suggests that these

psychological mechanisms were born of and refined by the process of natural selection.

In other words, specific psychological mechanisms produce behavioral styles that have

yielded more frequent mating and greater rates of survival, and consequently these

mechanisms have been perpetuated. Although a psychological mechanism may yield

behavioral styles that much of society views as undesirable, this mechanism may

characterize a significant percentage of the population because the mechanism has had

survival value (e.g., has contributed to society).

Throughout history, scholars have developed behavioral constructs (such as

temperament) based on behavioral similarities. Constructs allow people to organize and

classify, so that they can better make sense of the world. Although temperament concepts









are as old as recorded history, temperament is a relatively new area of scientific research.

Temperament has been subject to scientific study for a little more than 50 years.

While researchers strive to develop sound theories of temperament, the need for

suitable measures of these constructs persists in research and applied settings (e.g.,

school, vocational, and therapeutic settings). Test users want the best information

available, so that they can describe past and current behaviors, attempt to explain why

certain behaviors occur, and try to manage behaviors so they are beneficial to the

individual and to the community (Thayer, 1995). Information related to temperament also

can be used to facilitate growth, guide important life decisions, improve individual

performance, promote the prevention and intervention of problem behavior, and foster

social relationships.

The demand for tests to be used cross-nationally has increased in recent years.

Temperament tests are no exception, given the usefulness of information obtained from

these tests. However, importing and adapting tests to make clinical, educational, or other

important life decisions without first examining the comparative validity of test

interpretations across countries is inappropriate.

Recently, as evidenced by events such as the 1999 International Conference on Test

Adaptation, a number of scholars have actively engaged in studying and refining the

process of adapting tests for use cross-culturally and cross-nationally. However, studies

using factor analysis or confirmatory factor analysis to investigate the cross-national

construct equivalence of temperament measures have yet to be published. Moreover, no

evidence was found of attempts to establish the cross-national construct equivalence of

either temperament types or personality traits for children. This dearth of research is









partly because of the complex nature of temperament and personality and the tests that

assess them. These tests may be objective or projective; may measure unipolar or bipolar

variables; and may require responses that are choices rather than right or wrong answers.

These complexities hinder the process of acquiring data and comparing test validity

across groups (Stafford, 1994). Traditional bias definitions (e.g., slope and intercept bias)

and methodology used to establish the boundaries of test interpretations are largely

inapplicable to the study of temperament and personality (Stafford, 1994).

The purpose of our study was to examine the construct equivalence of a measure of

children's temperaments cross-nationally. Our study examined whether the Student

Styles Questionnaire (SSQ), as used in 8 countries, has etic (cultural-universal) qualities.

Thus, our study explored whether the SSQ measures the same temperament qualities

when used with children in various cultures. If evidence suggests that the SSQ measures

the same temperament qualities across countries, then children's temperaments, as

measured by the SSQ, may be attributes that transcend cultures. If the evidence suggests

otherwise, SSQ interpretations for children outside the United States must consider

differences in the constructs underlying temperament preferences.

Our study addressed the following three questions:

* Specific aim 1. Does the SSQ measure the same four bipolar dimensions among
children from Australia, China, Costa Rica, Gaza', Nigeria, the Philippines, the
United States, and Zimbabwe?

* Specific aim 2. If not, what is the structure of the SSQ in these countries?

* Specific aim 3. Are the intercorrelations of the dimensions similar across
countries?



1 Although Gaza may not be considered a country at this time, for convenience it will
be referred to as such throughout this document.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Student styles theory guided the development of the Student Styles Questionnaire

(SSQ). Data from the SSQ were used in our study. Temperament and issues that pertain

to its measurement are discussed. The purpose of the study is elaborated and research

questions addressed are set forth.

Description and Delimitation of Temperament

Temperament concepts pertain to consistencies that can be observed in people's

attitudes, preferences, affect, and styles of behaving. Temperament is thought to

influence how people choose the path their lives will take and how they react to those

experiences that life sends their way. However, temperament generally is not viewed as

having a deterministic influence. Instead, the concepts assume a bi-directional interplay

between an individual's constitutional traits and environment.

Various temperament theories exist. When adopting a theory of temperament, one

makes a number of assumptions about human behavior. Theories and their inherent

assumptions can constrain research perspectives. Therefore, views of temperament differ

according to the purpose of the researchers (e.g., clinical applications versus finding the

biological underpinnings of behavior). Researchers adopt a theory that allows them to

generate research and test their hypotheses. Thus, each theory needs a unique definition.

Consequently, there is no consensus definition of temperament.

The term temperament can be thought of as a broad rubric that subsumes specific

concepts (Goldsmith & Rieser-Danner, 1986). Despite the lack of a consensus definition,









there are convergent ideas regarding temperament (Goldsmith, Buss, Plomin, Rothbart,

Thomas, Chess, Hinde, & McCall, 1987). Some of the least contentious ideas held by

temperament scholars are as follows:

* The term temperament refers to a group of related traits rather than a single trait.

* Temperament refers to the issue of individual differences rather than species-
general characteristics.

* Temperament traits have biological underpinnings.

* The concept emphasizes continuity in behavioral tendencies.

* Despite the emphasis on continuity, temperament commonly is viewed as
malleable.

* The concept does not refer to discrete behavioral acts. Rather, temperament traits
refer to biases for certain moods, attitudes, and dispositions that affect the
probability that behaviors will occur.

Although the above points of agreement and others can be delineated, points of

divergence may be more striking. Although temperament research is rapidly evolving

(Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Teglasi, 1998), competing theories of temperament persist.

Consequently, temperament researchers continue to hold divergent assumptions and

beliefs about their subject matter.

Although researchers hold a plethora of divergent ideas, they all appear to stem

from two major points of divergence. The first major point of divergence pertains to the

boundaries of temperament (Goldsmith et al., 1987). Researchers disagree as to which

behaviors constitute temperament. Criteria proposed include the style of the behavior, the

relationship of the behavior to emotional systems, the stability of the behavior, and the

heritability of the behavior (Goldsmith et al., 1987). The second major point of

divergence pertains to the number of temperament dimensions or traits (Goldsmith et al.,

1987). This issue typically is addressed empirically using some form of mathematical









factor extraction and/or model-fitting technique. Although researchers have addressed

this issue, the unclear boundaries of temperament cause disagreement on this point.

Researchers tend to rename temperament variables, despite their similarity

(Rothbart, 1999). Researchers may rename variables in order to highlight the ideas that

make their research unique and important, rather than focus on recurring themes in the

literature. For example, Kagan (1989) and Thomas and Chess (1977) both hypothesized

temperament variables based on response to novelty. Kagan named his variables

behavioral approach and behavioral inhibition, while Thomas and Chess named approach

or withdrawal variables based on the initial response to new stimuli, and an adaptibility

variable based on the ease of responses to new or altered situations. Renaming of

variables also may result from the interdisciplinary nature of temperament research.

Scholars from diverse disciplines such as behavioral genetics, education,

psychophysiology, developmental psychology, personality theory, psychosomatic

medicine, and clinical psychiatry (Campos, Barrett, Lamb, Goldsmith, & Stenberg, 1983;

Goldsmith et al., 1987) contribute to the temperament literature. Researchers may be

unaware of the contributions of other disciplines. Whatever the reason, renaming

variables leads to confusion and discontinuity in research.

Individual temperament traits are embedded in the context of other temperament

traits or variables that constrain their influence (Teglasi, 1998). Moreover, temperament

is embedded in the context of personality variables that may mediate or moderate the

influence of temperament variables.

Personality generally is described as a broader construct than temperament. For

example, personality has been conceptualized in the following ways:









* As a combination of temperament traits plus ability traits or intelligence (Eysenck
& Eysenck, 1985)

* As a combination of temperament and dynamic motivational traits that arise in
response to the environment (Cattell & Kline, 1977)

* As a mutual interaction of environmental events, behavior, and personal factors
(Bandura, 1977)

* As a subset of personality (Buss & Plomin, 1984; Strelau, 1987)

* As the foundation of personality (Kluckhohn & Murray, 1953)

As with temperament, there is no consensus definition of personality. Because

temperament studies and personality studies often examine the same questions,

distinctions between the two constructs may be arbitrary. It is difficult to define

relationships between two constructs that have dynamic, evolving definitions.

Ancient Perspectives on Temperament

Pre-scientific temperament theories (although based on intuition and casual

observations) have endured for thousands of years and continue to exert a powerful

influence on temperament research, applied practice, and society in general. The most

influential Western perspectives have been those offered by Hippocrates, Galen, and

Kant. These perspectives and influential perspectives of Eastern scholars are discussed

next.

Hippocrates

The first prominent theory of temperament emerged from ancient Greek culture. In

the 4th century B.C., Hippocrates, regarded as the father of medicine, proposed a four

humor theory that became the early forerunner of modem neurochemical theories. These

humors (i.e., yellow and black bile, blood, and phlegm) were thought to create opposition

between warm and cool and between dry and moist bipolar bodily qualities. Hippocrates









attributed differences in rationality, emotionality, and behavior to the balance of these

humors.

Galen

Galen of Pergamon, a second-century physician, elaborated on Hippocrate's theory

(Kagan, 1994). Galen proposed nine temperament (a word derived from the Latin "to

mix") types, derived from Hippocrate's four humors. The ideal personality type was

believed to result when the four humors combined to form an exquisite balance of the

following bodily qualities: warm, cool, dry, and moist. Four less-ideal temperament types

resulted from the dominance of one of the four bodily qualities. The final four types that

were described as temperamental categories resulted from one pair of qualities

dominating the complementary pair (e.g., cool and dry dominating warm and moist). The

four temperament categories are as follows: melancholic, sanguine, choleric, and

phlegmatic. The melancholic type (cool and dry) has too much black bile, which makes

one sad and anxious. The sanguine type (warm and moist) has primarily blood, which

makes one enthusiastic and pleasant. The choleric type has too much yellow bile, which

makes one irritable and angry. The phlegmatic type has too much phlegm, which makes

one's emotions and actions slow.

Immanuel Kant

Hundreds of years after Galen's work, Immanuel Kant, an influential Prussian

scientist and philosopher, included a chapter on temperament in his 1798 book

Anthropologie. Kant believed that psychology could not be an experimental science. He

proposed that anthropology could serve as an alternative way of studying how people

actually behave and could provide the information necessary to predict and control









human behavior. Kant's book was widely read, and his ideas on temperament were

influential in Europe (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985).

Kant, like Galen, believed that humors formed the basis for temperament.

However, Kant believed that blood was the most significant component. He proposed

four independent temperaments: sanguine, melancholic, choleric, and phlegmatic. The

sanguine person is carefree and sociable. The melancholic person is anxious, and eludes

happiness. The choleric person is easily annoyed, and suffers most when others refuse to

follow his orders. The phlegmatic person is reasonable, persistent, and acts on principle

rather than instinct. To Kant, temperament refers to the energetic (choleric vs.

phelgmatic) and the emotional (sanguine vs. melancholic) characteristics of behavior.

People can be assigned to one of the four independent types based on their

dominant behavioral characteristics. According to Kant, there are no compound

temperaments (e.g., melancholic-phlegmatic).

Eastern Scholars

Ancient Eastern scholars, unlike Western scholars, apparently did not use stable

constructs such as temperament when developing explanatory theories for behavior

(Kagan, 1994). For example, the Chinese theory of human nature (held by the Chinese

for at least 2 millenia before Galen expanded on Hippocrate's theory) held that universal

energy (ch'i) exists. Ch'i is regulated by the complementary relationship between the

forces of yin (passive and completing) and yang (active and initiating). The balance of

yin and yang was thought to regulate physiological and psychological functioning. The

energy of ch'i always is changing, and therefore does not describe stable properties.

Ancient Hindu Indians also proposed a theory of human nature that ignored stable,

constitutional factors. The Hindus believed that environmental factors (specifically air,









water, and geographic location) influenced bodily substances (specifically spirit, phlegm,

and bile); and that this interaction was responsible for observed behavioral consistencies

(Garrison & Earls, 1987).

Modern Perspectives on Temperament

Wundt's Typology

The founder of experimental psychology, Wilhelm Wundt, proposed the modern

view of temperament in 1903 (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Like Galen and Kant,

Wundt's typology offered four temperaments. However, Wundt changed the uni-

dimensional, categorical system offered by Galen and Kant to a quantitative, two-

dimensional system. In Wundt's system, people can occupy any position (and, moreover,

any combination of positions) on the energetic and emotional dimensions offered by

Kant. Wundt labeled the dimensions strong emotions as opposed to weak emotions, and

changeable as opposed to unchangeable. The position that people occupy in Wundt's

two-dimensional system is determined by the strength and temporal characteristics of

their emotions.

Jungian Typology

Carl Jung, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, developed an interest in temperament

while exploring his theoretical beliefs and how they differed from those of other

influential psychoanalysts such as Freud and Adler. Jung found his interest in the

delimitation and organization of psychological processes to be a prominent difference.

Jung detailed these psychological processes in Psychological Types (Jung, 1971).

According to Jung, differences among people can be conceptualized into two types:

individual and group. Conceptually, Jung's psychological types are group differences.









Groups of people with a particular psychological type hold similar attitudes toward the

world that determine and limit their judgment.

Jung believed that Galen's classifications were based on affect. Galen seemingly

based his classifications on affect because affect is the most common and striking feature

of behavior. To Jung, affect constrains attitudes of the conscious mind, and consequently

constrains free choice. Thus, Jung was interested in unconscious mental processes such as

attitudes and values.

Jung believed that one should strive to realize one's self. Jung's concept of self

refers to a broad array of psychic phenomena that comprise people's inner world. In

realizing the self, people transcend all opposing forces, so that every aspect of their

personality is expressed equally. He believed that opposing forces produce energy. With

no opposition, there is no energy. His theory focuses on those opposing forces that he

believed have the most empirically robust impact on the function of people's attitudes.

Jung believed that the principle of opposites governs attitudes. Opposing forces can

be thought of as bi-polar dimensions, as everyone has both opposing forces. The

dimensions delineated by Jung arise from three qualities:

* Where one derives energy
* A focus on practical details versus theory
* Reliance on thoughts versus feelings when making decisions

The first quality results from the tendency of the libido (by which Jung means more

than sexual energy) to be directed to the inner self (introversion) or to objects of interest

extraversionn). People develop a primary mechanism attitude-type as they develop (i.e.,

either introversion or extraversion) based on this quality. People develop secondary

mechanisms or function-types based on the second and third qualities. Introversion and









extraversion are expressed via four function-types: thinking, feeling, sensing, and

intuiting. Thinking and feeling are considered rational functions, because they use reason,

judgment, abstraction, and generalization. Sensing and intuiting are considered irrational

functions, because they are based on intensity of one's perception. Jung's psychological

types are formed by combining an individual's attitude-type with his or her function-

types.

According to Jung, people have a tendency to strive for psychic equilibrium. They

delude their judgment so they can compensate for the psychic imbalance created by the

predominance of their psychological type. The inclusion of this tendency complicates

Jung's theory and makes the interpretation of types difficult, which is why no modem

psychologist has adopted his theory in its entirety (Eseynck & Eseynck, 1985).

Jung was aware that, for the most part, his typology was not understood by others.

Jung also was aware that critics tended to assume that his types were not supported by

empirical data. Moreover, in the forward to the Argentine edition of his book, he noted

that, even in medical circles, an opinion exists that his method of treatment consists of

fitting patients into his system and giving them corresponding advice. In the 1937

forward to the seventh Swiss edition, Jung countered that his typology resulted from

years of experience as a practicing psychotherapist (experience that is not available to

academic psychologists). Thus, Jung believed that sufficient experience as a

psychotherapist was needed to fully understand the meaning and value of his typology.

Personal Disposition Theory

Like Jung, Gordon Allport also was greatly influenced by Freud. Allport, who was

born in Indiana, managed to arrange a meeting with Freud in Vienna. Allport was

immediately disenchanted by what he perceived as Freud's over-analysis of their









conversation. He believed that the determinism of human behavior is much more

complex and varied than the explanations offered by Freud's theory. Allport's writings,

especially his 1937 book Personality, a Psychological Interpretation, did much to bring

an awareness of and interest in personality and temperament to the United States

(Lombardo & Foschi, 2002).

Allport focused on the study of personal traits. He later changed the term personal

traits to personal dispositions to emphasize the importance of unique, individual

characteristics. That is, he believed that knowing other people's traits does not

necessarily allow you to understand a particular person. Nevertheless, he did believe that

some traits are common to a culture, and are recognized and named by people in the

culture (e.g., extraverts and introverts). Common traits are reliably observed and

normally distributed. According to Allport, people possess a number of traits. Various

traits differently influence behavior. Traits that are sufficiently pervasive to affect all

behavior he called cardinal dispositions. He also believed that people typically have five

to ten highly characteristic tendencies, which he referred to as central dispositions. He

also believed people have specific, focused tendencies that occur only during specific

situations. He referred to these traits as secondary dispositions. Psychologists may now

refer to them as states.

Trait Theorists

Contrary to Allport's theory and his belief in the individuality of people,

researchers such as Raymond Cattell (Cattell & Kline, 1977), Hans Eysenck (Eysenck &

Etsebcjm 1985), and J.P. Guilford (Guilford, Zimmerman, & Guilford, 1976) believed

that specification equations can be devised and people's behavior predicted using

temperament traits. These researchers shared an interest in using mathematical methods









to study personality. These contemporaries are classified as state-trait theorists. To them,

personality has two major aspects: temperament and intelligence. We focused only on the

temperament aspect of their work. Armed with their knowledge of mathematics and

methodology, trait theorists have done much to improve the scientific rigor of

temperament investigation.

Trait theorists shared the belief that a scientifically sound structure of personality

(which they attempted to uncover via the factor-analytic approach) would allow for the

reliable prediction and control of behavior. However, empirical evidence gathered by trait

theorists did not support using personality indicators as reliable methods of predicting

and controlling behavior. It was argued that intervening variables considerably reduced

cross-situational consistency in behaviors, so that prediction was difficult (Eysenck

1982). In search of suitable criteria for evaluating trait theories, Cattell (1982) and

Eysenck (1982) proposed that constructs should have a demonstrated heritability

component. Cattell and Eysenck used behavioral genetic research methods to estimate the

extent to which traits are determined by genetic and environmental influences; and found

that their constructs were substantially heritable. The condition of heritability has had a

lasting influence on both trait and temperament theorists.

Raymond Cattell. According to Cattell, personality research should be the

foundation of psychological science (Cattell & Kline, 1977). He believed that viewing

psychological process areas (e.g., perception, memory, learning theory, physiological

psychology) in isolation provides only a limited glimpse of the whole individual. Instead,

he believed that personality is the totality of coexisting variables that influence human

behavior. Cattell obtained 4,500 language terms for traits, from a classic study by Allport









and Odbert (1938). He then reduced these terms to a limited number (by first eliminating

synonyms, and then using factor analysis) in an attempt to uncover the fundamental

structure of human personality. Cattell believed that traits constitute the primary elements

of personality. He posited 46 surface traits and 15 source traits. Thirty-six surface traits

were obtained by factor analysis, and 10 others were derived from the abnormal

psychiatry literature and experimental psychology. He then analyzed the correlations of

these 46 surface factors and derived 15 source traits. He also included a 16th factor,

intelligence/ability. According to Cattell, source traits are associated with emotional

expression, and the sum of these traits is analogous to an individual's temperament.

Source traits (as measured by objective methods and revealed through factor analysis) are

relatively stable, and describe how a person does what he does (i.e., his general style and

tempo). According to Cattell, why a person does what he does also is determined by

dynamic motivational traits that tend to fluctuate in response to the environment.

Dynamic motivational traits refer to responses to instinctual goals (i.e., ergs); and

reactions to people, objects, or social institutions (i.e., sentiments).

Hans Eysenck. Eysenck based his theory on physiology and genetics. However, he

also was a confirmed behaviorist who believed in using the principles of learning to make

the most of one's genetic endowment. Eysenck viewed personality as growing out of

one's genetic inheritance. He placed great importance on individual differences. He

believed that researchers working in psychology incorrectly place less value on such

differences than do researchers working in other sciences. For example, he wrote that

physics and chemistry researchers are aware that one element or alloy does not

necessarily behave like another. Therefore, researchers are careful to specify the elements









or alloys with which their experiments or resulting functional equations are concerned.

Thus, Eysenck noted the falseness of the assumption that any equation will apply equally

to all members of the human species (or to any animal species). Conversely, he believed

that idiographic approaches (such as Allport's) went too far.

Eysenck aligned his research with the typological approach. Eysenck's approach

differed from Cattell's (and from Guilford's) regarding level of analysis. Cattell and

Guilford were interested in trait-level analysis. Eysenck proposed that higher-order

aggregates (or types derived from further analysis of the intercorrelations of simple traits)

were more empirically robust, and thus more deserving of attention. Moreover, Cattell

and Guilford focused on normal personality functioning; whereas Eysenck also was

interested in identifying traits underlying pathology. Based on his research, Eysenck

(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) proposed three factors, extraversion, psychoticism, and

neuroticism. The traits that make up extraversion are sociable, lively, active, assertive,

sensation-seeking, carefree, dominant, surgent, and venturesome. The traits that make up

psychoticism are aggressive, cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, antisocial,

unempathic, creative, and tough-minded. The traits that make up neuroticism are anxious,

depressed, guilt feelings, low self-esteem, tense, irrational, shy, moody, and emotional.

J.P. Guilford. For more than 25 years, Guilford (Guilford, Zimmerman, &

Guilford, 1976) engaged in temperament research using factor analytic methods. Guilford

was interested in analysis at the primary trait level, and was unhappy when he found high

intercorrelations among primary factors. Guilford believed that factors that measure the

greatest number of salient traits would provide more useful information than those that

measure a limited number of higher-order traits. The exact number of factors in









Guilford's structure varied as his research progressed and new factors were found. In

general, his primary factors closely resemble Eysenck's higher-order factors. In fact,

Guilford's factors were used in Eysenck's first studies of extraversion (Cattell & Kline,

1977). Guilford's factors differ from Cattell's mostly because of the factorial methods

used to obtain them (Cattell & Gibbons, 1968).

Five-Factor Model. On reviewing earlier factor-analytic work and comparing and

contrasting his own research with those of other researchers, Norman (1963) noticed that

many researchers who used factor-analytic methods had uncovered five basic factors of

personality. Researchers tended to disagree on what these factors assessed. Therefore,

these factors were assigned a variety of labels, resulting in confusion and disagreements.

In response to this labeling dilemma, Norman assigned roman numerals to the factors.

Newman (1996a) noted that two of Norman's big five factors (I and IV,

respectively) are Eysenck's extraversion and neuroticism, with extraversion being the

most robust of the five factors. McCrae and Costa added an "openness to experience"

factor (one that other researchers had labeled "culture" or "intellect") when developing

the original NEO-Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985). The "openness to

experience" factor became Norman's Factor V. At a conference in 1982, Lewis Goldberg

convinced McCrae and Costa to add Factors II and III to their instrument (Newman,

1996a). Factor II was labeled as "agreeableness" and Factor III as "conscientiousness".

Thus, the five factor model (FFM) was born.

As McCrae and colleagues hoped, the FFM resulted in cooperative research and

cumulative findings for personality psychology. Cross-sectional data from a variety of

countries suggest that the factors are transcontextual (McCrae et al., 2000). Within-









culture variation in the factors appears much greater than among-culture variation.

Moreover, the factors appear to be shared by nonhuman species. For example, owner's

ratings of their pets yielded some of the five factors (Gosling & John, 1998); while

zookeeper ratings of chimpanzees yielded all five factors, plus a large dominance factor

(King & Figueredo, 1997).

Based on their own research with the FFM (and other relevant research), McCrae et

al. (2000) concluded that personality development appears to be an intrinsic process.

Except for extreme influences (e.g., trauma) that can have profound effects,

developmental timing appears to be largely under genetic control, and environmental

influences appear to have relatively little influence on development. In particular, shared

experiences (e.g., being reared by the same parents, or attending the same school) show

very little effect. In contrast, environmental influences affect the expression of

personality. While most behavioral genetic studies attribute most variance in personality

to nonshared experiences, much of this variance can be attributed to method and

measurement error. For example, Riemann, Angleitnes, and Strelau (1997) obtained data

from multi-informant, multi-method sources to estimate method variance. Only 21 to

34% of nonshared variance results from nonshared experiences such as having different

peer groups, or teachers; or external biological sources (e.g., prenatal hormonal

environment, or central nervous system damage resulting from trauma or disease).

In light of such findings, McCrae and colleagues proposed the traits measured by

their personality questionnaires are essentially temperaments (McCrae et al., 2000).

Goodness-of-Fit Theory

Thomas and Chess began their study of temperament in the 1950s (when learning

theory and psychoanalytic theories prevailed, and parents were blamed for children's









deviance). Thomas and Chess hypothesized that their contemporaries were assigning too

much weight to the role of environmental influences on behavior, and too little weight to

constitutional factors. Based on their work with disturbed children and adults, they began

to believe that many behaviors traditionally associated with purposive-motivational

factors were better viewed as non-motivational behavioral styles (Thomas & Chess,

1977).

Thomas and Chess (1977) described temperament and behavioral styles similarly.

Behavioral style refers to how someone behaves, rather then how well, what (i.e., abilities

and content), or why (i.e., motivation). However, they distinguished between the two

terms. Behavioral style includes stylistic behavioral characteristics that appear both in

infancy as well as later in life, while temperament is restricted to those characteristics that

are evident in early infancy. They emphasize that their definition of temperament has no

implications for etiology or immutability and merely describes the behavioral

phenomena. New behaviors that occur later in life may represent older patterns in a new

form as well as qualitatively new psychological characteristics. In other words, they

believe the developmental process is continuous as well as discontinuous.

Thomas and Chess (1977) characterize development as the complex interplay

between children and their environment. The history of this interplay influences future

interplay. Because development is complex and without direct causal chains, positive

outcomes are possible despite environmental trauma or undesirable genetic endowment.

They borrowed the evolutionary concept of goodness of fit elaborated previously

by Henderson (1913) to explain the temperament-environment interactive process. In









adopting the concept, Thomas and Chess adopted the assumption that behavioral style

cannot be understood outside of the context of the environments in which it occurs.

Goodness of fit results when there is consonance between the characteristics of a

person (e.g., their capacities and behavioral styles) and the characteristics of the

environment (e.g., its expectations and demands). Poorness of fit results when there is

considerable dissonance between the person and the environment. Goodness of fit does

not imply the absences of stress and conflict.

Stress and conflict inevitably occur as people mature into progressively higher

levels of functioning and may even serve a constructive role. However, poorness of fit

occurs when excessive stress occurs due to a person's inability to meet environmental

expectations and demands. Thus, a temperament trait may be influential in some

situations and not others as well as at a specific point during one's life and not during

others.

Thomas and Chess (1977) developed nine categories of temperament based on an

inductive content analysis of parent interview protocols for the infancy periods of the first

twenty-two children they studied. Qualitative and factor analytic methods were used to

form three behavioral constellations. The categories and constellations are summarized in

Table 2-1 and Table 2-2.

Thomas and Chess used undesirable sampling practices in their research. Their first

(and most intensively studied) sample, the New York Longitudinal Study (NYLS)

sample, was far from representative of the general population. Of the 141 children in the

sample, 78% were Jewish, 15% Protestant, and 7% Catholic. Forty percent of the mothers

and sixty percent of the fathers had both college education and postgraduate degrees.









Table 2-1. Temperament categories proposed by Thomas and Chess. Adapted with
permission from Thomas, A. & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and
development. New York: Brunner/Mazel. (pp. 21-22).
Temperament Category Definition

Activity Level The motor component of a child's functioning and the
diurnal proportion of active and inactive periods
Rhythmicity The predictability of biological functions (e.g., hunger,
sleep cycles)
Approach or Withdrawal The nature of the initial response (mood expression or
motor activity) to a new stimulus
Adaptibility The ease of adapting responses to new or altered
situations
Threshold of Responsiveness The intensity level of stimulation needed to evoke a
discernible response
Intensity of Reaction The energy level of the response (quality or direction
of response not considered)
Quality of Mood The amount of positive or negative affect displayed
Distractibility The degree to which extraneous environmental stimuli
interfere with or alter the direction of ongoing behavior
Attention Span/Persistence Two related categories: attention span refers to the time
spent on an activity while persistence refers to the
continuation of an activity despite obstacles


Such practices obviously are cause for concern in regards to how these categories

and constellations apply to children of parents who are neither Jewish nor well educated.

In an attempt to improve the generalizability of their findings by obtaining a sample of

contrasting socioeconomic background, Thomas and Chess sampled 95 children of

working-class Puerto Rican parents, 86% of whom lived in low-income public housing.

Fortunately, other researchers (Carey, 1970; Carey & McDevitt, 1978) have

developed questionnaires based on the dimensions proposed by Thomas and Chess and

used sounder sampling practices. Their findings support the generalizability of these

dimensions beyond the two samples studied by Thomas and Chess.









Table 2-2. Temperament constellations proposed by Thomas and Chess. Adapted with
permission from Thomas, A. & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and
development. New York: Brunner/Mazel. (pp. 22-23).
Behavioral Constellation Definition
Easy Child Characterized by regularity, positive approach
responses to new stimuli, high adaptability to
change, and mild or moderately intense mood
which is mostly positive
Difficult Child Characterized by irregularity in biological
functions, negative withdrawal to new stimuli,
poor adaptability to change, and intense mood
expressions which are frequently negative

Slow-To-Warm-Up Child Characterized by a combination of negative
responses of mild intensity to new stimuli with
slow adaptability after repeated contact. Compared
to the Difficult Child constellation, this
constellation shows mild intensity of reactions and
more regularity of biological functions

Biological Approaches

Although temperaments are hypothesized to be at the interface of biology and

behavior, most research on temperament has focused on behavior rather than biology

(Bates & Wachs, 1994). The aim of much of this research has been to establish the

stability of temperament traits across the life span. In such research, temperament

variables typically have been viewed as either substrates of personality (Goldsmith,

Lemery, Aksan, Buss, 2000) or as a subset of personality (Strelau, 1987; Buss & Plomin,

1984). Recent research suggests that temperament is analogous to the big five factors of

personality (Angleitner & Ostendorf, 1994; McCrae et al., 2000).

Some researchers began at the biological level and attempted to link biological

processes with behavior. Because research needed to map simple behaviors to neural

structures required years and temperaments tend to be complex, experiments designed to

study nervous system correlates of temperaments have been difficult. As such, the









majority of researchers studying relationships among temperament behaviors and biology

have begun at the level of behavior and then attempted to link behaviors with biological

factors (e.g., attempts to find relationships among behaviors that are on the introversion-

extraversion temperament dimension and brain structures). This method has been called

the top-down approach. The top-down approach is considered to be biological in

orientation because it places a strong emphasis on biology and views the roots of

behavior as biological (Gunnar, 1990). Three well-known top-down approaches include

the behavioral-genetic approach, the behavioral inhibition approach, and the reactivity

and self-regulation approach.

Behavior-genetic approach. Buss and Plomin (1975) posited four temperaments

in their initial theory of temperament: emotionality, activity, sociability, and impulsivity

(for which they use the acronym EASI). They established four criteria for deciding what

characteristics constitute temperaments: 1) presence in our animal forebears, 2) a strong

genetic component, 3) demonstrated stability during the life-span, and 4) adaptive value.

In 1984, they revised their theory (Bluss & Plomin, 1984). They dropped

impulsivity as a temperament due to the lack of evidence supporting its heritability.

Emotionality was referred to as the intensity of a person's reactions to his or her

environment. Arousal was described as the component of emotionality with the most

influence on individual differences. The other components of emotionality (i.e., feelings

and expression) were believed to be less influential. Activity was described as the total

energy output of a person (i.e., the degree to which a person is active or sedentary).

Sociability was described as the degree to which the presence of others is or is not

preferred over solitude.









Like Thomas and Chess, Buss and Plomin adhere to a behavioral style definition of

temperament. According to their later theory (Bluss & Plomin, 1984), temperaments

constitute bi-directional variables. Temperaments both influence how others respond to a

child and mediate environmental affects on the child. In this theory, temperaments are

regarded as substrates of personality that are highly heritable and present early in life.

The heritability of temperaments has been established using quantitative genetics.

Plomin and Saudino (1994) note that adoption studies using objective and observational

data clearly show a genetic contribution to temperament, but genetics rarely explain more

than half the variance in behavior. They believe that temperament traits are regulated by

multiple rather than single genes, and that these genes turn on and off during

development in order to regulate as well as in response to developmental processes. They

propose that molecular genetics will provide undisputable evidence that heritable

temperaments exist. Moreover, they propose that molecular and quantitative methods will

be used in combination to answer questions about the stability of temperaments, establish

links between normal and abnormal behavior, and investigate interactions and

correlations between genotype and environment.

Behavioral inhibition approach. Like Buss and Plomin (1984), Kagan considers

temperament to be inherited, stable, and manifest during infancy (Kagan, 1989). His

work has focused on infants and young children. He takes a biological approach to his

research. Thus, he has chosen to focus his study on two temperaments he hypothesized to

have empirically observable relationships with biological variables: behavioral approach

and behavioral inhibition. Both concepts relate to a child's initial reaction to novelty (e.g,

unfamiliar people, objects, and contexts) or challenging situations. He has accumulated









considerable evidence supporting his temperament quality's physiological markers (e.g.,

heart rate, pupillary dilation, and cortisol levels).

Reactivity and self-regulation approach. Rothbart and Derryberry (1981)

defined temperament as constitutionally based individual differences in reactivity and

self-regulation. By constitutional, they meant that it is heritable, emerges early in life, and

shows stability throughout the life-span. Reactivity referred to individual differences in

the excitability or arousal of the nervous system that produce emotional, autonomic,

endocrine, behavioral, and other types of responses. Self-regulation referred to the neural

and behavioral processes that modulate reactivity. This line of research arose from

dissatisfaction with the behavioral style definitions of Thomas and Chess (1977) and

Buss and Plomin (1975). Rothbert, Ahadi, and Evans (2000) offer three issues of

contention that prompted this alternative to the behavioral style definition. First,

temperament traits may not be expressed in all situations. Second, responses may not

generalize to all modalities of expression (Rothbart, 1981; Martin, Wisenbaker, &

Huttunen, 1994). Third, the study of self-regulation is a useful endeavor absent from

behavioral style approaches.

Rothbart and Derryberry (1981) hypothesized substrates of personality could be

identified by studying infants and identifying the temperamental components of affect,

attention, and action. They found that temperament variables emerge at different ages and

that developmental processes require the examination of the structure of temperament at

different ages. They found infants to be chiefly reactive, that self-regulatory systems

often do not emerge until later in life, and that not all reactive systems are present at birth









(e.g., fear). Moreover, they found that reactive emotional systems can have self-

regulatory components (e.g., the behavioral inhibition aspect of fear).

Bottom-up approaches. Bottom-up biological approaches begin with known

biological events and attempts to predict behavioral patterns. While simple behavioral

processes may be localized to specific structures in the brain, complex psychological

processes such as temperaments are more likely to involve interconnected systems and

circuits. Thus, attempts to establish brain-behavior relationships when studying

temperament are more difficult than when studying less complex phenomena (Steinmetz,

1994). Moreover, at least some individual differences in behavior are likely to result from

differences in neural function. Thus, an understanding of brain-behavior relationships on

temperament requires researchers to uncover the neural systems involved in temperament

and the factors that lead to individual differences in neural function (Steinmetz, 1994).

Nelson (1994) formed hypotheses about relationships that may exist among

temperament traits and neural structures. According to his hypotheses, behavioral

approach and behavioral inhibition systems are linked with neural structures. The

behavioral approach system was described as a system for planning motor movements

and directing search behavior toward stimuli. Complex brain functions involve intricate

relationships among neural tracts and structures. Nevertheless, an abbreviated

explanation of how this system works has been provided by Nelson (1994). The function

of this system largely is dictated by two neural structures: the amygdala and the

orbitoprefrontal cortex. Although the amygdala has been implicated in a variety of

behavioral functions, within the current discussion it can be thought of as an emotional

center. The orbitoprefrontal cortex is believed to use information from the amygdala and









other sources to determine how a person should behave. If the emotional information

received by the orbitoprefrontal cortex is positive, behavioral approach occurs.

The processing and use of negative emotional information activates the behavioral

inhibition system. This system involves inhibiting behaviors or withdrawing from

situations. It includes comparator and motor processes (Nelson, 1994). According to

Gray's (1991) model of behavioral inhibition, the comparator process has two main

functions. First, the subiculum (the part of the hippocampal system involved in memory)

receives input from the entorhinal cortex, which receives input from all cortical sensory

association areas as well as the amygdala. Second, the Papez circuit (a collection of

septohippocampal structures that are involved in processing emotions) appears to

facilitate decisions about future events. Motor circuits act on information from the

comparator, and the prefrontal cortex feeds information back to the comparator system.

Nelson (1994) has summarized information that supports the link between neural

circuitry involved in behavioral inhibition and negative affect.

Myers/Briggs Type Theory

The development of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator2 (MBTI) can be thought of as

a mixture of remarkable foresight and keen observations of human behavior (Quenk,

2000). The MBTI was constructed based on the conclusion that Jung's theory of

temperament and his temperament types to describe "healthy personality differences" or

"gifts differing". Moreover, the MBTI expanded Jung's theory by adding a new

temperament type, judging-perceiving (Myers & Mccaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley,

Quenck, & Hammer, 1998). The judging-perceiving personality types differentiated the









manner in which decisions are made. Persons with a judging temperament make

decisions quickly while those with a perceiving temperament prefer postponing them.

From its birth and publication in 1956, interest in the MBTI has grown. It now is

used by more than two million people a year to determine normal personality functioning.

From 1956 through 1974, the MBTI was popular among only a small number of

researchers. However, in 1975, publication of the MBTI was transferred from

Educational Testing Service to Consulting Psychologists Press. Movement of the MBTI

to the Consulting Psychologist Press made it more accessible to professionals who had

the credentials needed to purchase Level B instruments.

Keirsian Theory

According to David Keirsey (1998), environmental influences can not change a

person's individual differences. He believes these differences are good and that much can

be lost by ignoring or condemning them. To Keirsey, the important differences are innate

and develop into a few distinctive patterns. A mature character arises when these traits

have developed. Understanding these patterns helps us understand ourselves and others.

Like many typologists, Keirsey posits four temperaments. His work is heavily

influenced by the work of Myers and Briggs. After completing the MBTI, results helped

him better understand himself and others and ultimately influenced his decision to

immerse himself in the study of temperament. He also was influenced by reading Plato's

The Republic. Plato wrote of four kinds of character corresponding to the four

temperaments attributed to Hippocrates. Unlike later typologists such as Jung or Myers,

Plato was more concerned with understanding people's roles in the social order than their


2 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered
trademarks of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.









underlying temperaments. Plato wrote of the iconic (artist), pistic (caretaker), noetic

(moralist), and dianoetic (logical investigator) characters. These characters correspond to

Hippocrates' temperament types sanguine, melancholic, choleric, and phlegmatic,

respectively. Keirsey renamed the iconic character the artisan, the pistic character the

guardian, the noetic character the idealist, and the dianoetic character the rational.

Keirsey's types correspond to Myers's SP, SJ, NF, and NT types, respectively. According

to Keirsey, each temperament has two complementary types and one opposite type based

on the use of communication and tools, as visually displayed in Figure 2-1.

Thus, the four temperaments are derived from interweaving communication and

tool use. Individual differences result from use of words and tools. Most people are

concrete in word usage. People are about equally divided between being cooperative and

utilitarian in tool usage.

The attempt to define personality differences by word and tool use sets his view of

temperament apart from Myers', which is based on Jung's internal psychological

functions. Like Myers, Keirsey expanded the four types into sixteen subtypes. Keisey's

subtypes are called role variants. The artisian role variants are the promoter (ESTP),

crafter (ISTP), performer (ESFP), and composer (ISFP). The guardian role variants are

the supervisor (ESTJ), inspector (ISTJ), provider (ESFJ), and protector (ISFJ). The

idealist role variants are the teacher (ENFJ), counselor (INFJ), champion (ENFP), and

healer (INFP). Finally, the rational role variants are the field marshal (ENTJ), the

mastermind (INTJ), the inventor (ENTP), and the architect (INTP). Keisey contrasts the

values, interests, self-images, and social roles of the four types. Keirsey also asserted that









the four types differ in their possession of the relative quantity of four kinds of

intelligence (i.e., tactical, logistical, diplomatic, and strategic). He notes that, in defining

his four "intelligence types", he is referring to his belief that the kind of intelligent roles

displayed by people is determined by their temperament. He is not referring to the degree

of skill at that role. In focusing on the practical social role aspect of temperament,

Keirsey has done much to explore the implications of temperament in important social

matters such as mating, parenting, working, and leading.

Abstract Words Concrete Words


Cooperative
Tool Use


Utilitarian Tool
Use


Figure 2-1. Keirsian types and their derivation. Reprinted with permission from Keirsey,
D. (1998). Please understand me II: Temperament, character, intelligence. Del
Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis (p. 29).

SSQ Theory

The Student Styles Questionnaire (SSQ; Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996), like

the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, was founded on the belief that individual differences

need not be seen as pejorative, but rather can be used to optimize one's understanding of

individual preferences and differences. The SSQ authors, like Myers and Briggs, felt that

the knowledge of one's own differences was not sufficient. Instead, this knowledge once

acquired should be made functional and used to provide a basis for introspection and self-

awareness.

Similar to the MBTI, the SSQ is based on Jungian theory. As previously stated,

Jung created his typology for various reasons. One reason was to better equip


Abstract Concrete
NF SJ
Cooperator Cooperator
Abstract Concrete
NT SP
Utilitarian Utilitarian









psychologists with an understanding of themselves and others. Likewise, teachers

equipped with a better understanding of their personal learning styles may be more apt to

understand differences in their students and thus design curriculum and provide

instruction that are meaningful for them. Moreover, a child involved with learning

activities that are personally meaningful and in tune with his or her learning style will put

forth more effort in the classroom and enjoy the learning experience. The SSQ, a

downward extension of the Myers-Briggs, attempts to provide a link between children's

temperament, their education, and other important life events and outcomes. According to

SSQ theory, development is shaped by biology, environment, and personal choices or

decisions. However, although an environment can be manipulated to optimize learning

and children can be taught to make efficient and wise choices, teachers, parents, and

others who work with children have little control over a child's biological makeup.

Although children can be taught new positive behaviors, the biological makeup of the

child impacts the degree he or she is capable of sustaining such an endeavor.

The SSQ is based on normal variation and not pathology or weakness (Oakland et

al., 1996). The SSQ can be administered by teachers and then used to help guide

decisions regarding instruction and lesson planning. Unfortunately, much of the

instruction in the past has placed students in passive learning roles, with the teacher

teaching to a class and usually using the same teaching and instructional styles time and

time again. However, with a new awareness of their students interests, teachers can create

rich and meaningful lessons and form a classroom in which students are active and

involved learners because their individual preferences are being respected.









The SSQ was founded on the premise that differences in themselves are strengths

and no learning style is superior to another. The impact of a person's temperament

depends, in part, on how it enables the person to effectively coexist and interact with his

or her environment. Thus, because environments differ and facilitate the display of

certain temperament related traits, no temperament type is inherently superior to others.

Students taking the SSQ can become aware of areas where they possess talent and

aptitude. Knowledge of such can prove highly proactive not only in an educational

setting, but also in a metacognitive and personal manner.

The SSQ assesses four bipolar dimensions: extroverted-introverted, practical-

imaginative, thinking-feeling, and organized-flexible. In line with SSQ theory, these eight

temperament types are referred to as styles. When combined, they form sixteen possible

style combinations that are representative of the student's individual differences and

preferences.

Extroverted and introverted style preferences. Extroverted and introverted style

preferences are related to the source from which a child receives his or her energy.

According to Oakland and colleagues (1996), 65% of children prefer the extroverted style

and 35% prefer the introverted style. The extroverted child receives his or her energy

from others and seeks their company. The extroverted child feels uncomfortable when

forced to spend too much time alone. In fact, most extroverted children are

uncomfortable with silence.

Children with an extroverted style preference tend to require much attention and

communication with their families. They also need more encouragement and praise and

thrive in an environment where these are provided. In addition, these children usually get









to know others quickly just as others get to know them quickly. In school, extroverted

children are inclined to join groups and enjoy interacting with their peers. They prefer

hands-on activities and tend to perform best when long assignments are subdivided into

components. They also prefer assignments that can be discharged orally as opposed to

employing written expression.

Because extroverted children require more interaction with others, they are more

inclined to interrupt their classmates as they work or disrupt the general learning

environment. In addition, they are inclined to act on impulse to respond quickly to a task

and stop to analyze it after the fact. Finally, they are likely to say the first thing that

comes to mind, whether it is a hurtful comment or a compliment.

Children with an introverted style preference draw their energy from within and

feel their energy is drained when they spend too much time with others. At home, these

children need time to be alone, thus enabling them to derive energy from within, which in

turn makes them happier. Although these children tend to enjoy spending time alone,

they often have strong attachments to their friends and family. Because they derive

energy from being alone, they may be misunderstood by their family, friends, and peers

who feel they are too introverted and lacking in social skills. Others may feel that these

children prefer to be alone and not participate in activities or family events. Children with

an introverted style preference tend to think before speaking. They often are reserved and

tend to be cautious in their actions. Because of their tendency to be hesitant, methodical,

and less impulsive, their opinions often are well developed and thus respected. These

students are more selective of those to whom they get close and to whom their feelings

are revealed. In addition, they tend to be sensitive and caring friends because they are









eager to listen to others and make decisions only after considerable thought and

introspection.

In school, these student are likely to thrive when their learning and behavioral

styles are appreciated. For example, these children can work successfully with others in

the classroom if they are placed with compatible peers in small groups or pairs. In

addition, because these children seem to possess insight due to their reflective,

methodical and logical reasoning, they need opportunities to express their thoughts.

Expression can be achieved best by having them present their opinions after they have

been given ample time to prepare or they have heard the presentations of others.

Unfortunately, because of this trait, these children often get overlooked by teachers who

can mistake their reserved nature as uncooperative, unfriendly, and less intelligent.

Practical and imaginative style preferences. Within the school population, about

65% of children prefer a practical style. Students with a practical style are realistic. They

attend less to abstractions and more to facts they can use. At home, these children enjoy

spending time with their family members and are inclined to possess traditional attitudes

towards family life. They find the company of grandparents especially pleasing.

Unfortunately, because these students seem to have strong beliefs and to be drawn to

facts, they may avoid peers who are different or possess more imaginative qualities.

Within the classroom, these students enjoy learning sequentially through traditional

instructional methods. Many educators who choose to teach in elementary, middle, and

high school also have a preference for the practical style and thus exhibit a teaching style

consistent with this preference. Students with a practical style preference generally enjoy

working with others and are inclined to join groups of peers that share their interests.









They prefer assignments for which there exists an obvious purpose. Abstract concepts are

usually rejected by these children as they tend to prefer learning facts that are in turn used

for a purpose. In addition, they tend to enjoy activities that are multi-sensory. These

children may be uninterested in abstract concepts to the point of rejecting poetry and

fictional literature. Finally, because students with a practical style prefer simplicity, they

quickly lose interest when given tasks which are time consuming and involve many steps.

About 35% of children prefer an imaginative style. These children tend to display

creative instincts. They enjoy activities where new and original ideas are presented and

learned through non-traditional means. Children with an imaginative style preference also

value the quick acquisition of knowledge and therefore often leaps before truly analyzing

the usefulness or applications of a new theory. Thus, children with an imaginative style

are inclined to make factual errors. In addition, they become bored more easily and tend

to dislike situations or tasks where there is little change. Finally, they tend to enjoy the

abstract nature of language and easily interpret metaphors and other types of figurative

language.

In the social setting, these children tend to enjoy spending time with other children

who share their creative qualities. These children gravitate to other imaginative children,

in part, because they may feel rejected by their practical peers and are also inclined to be

more accepting of children who are different. Within the family setting, these children

generally have strong attachments to siblings and other family members. They may

demonstrate their fondness in ways that are out of the ordinary. In the classroom,

imaginative children seem to prefer working on projects or assignments in which they are

able to use their imagination, learn new skills, and study theories. Unfortunately, because









children with an imaginative style often are attracted to what is novel, they may reject

important facts and accept new theories which may lack empirical support. These

children also may be sophisticated planners who come up with projects that can become

too difficult or elaborate for them to complete.

Thinking and feeling style preferences. Thinking and feeling styles highlight the

manner in which individuals make decisions. Unlike the other dimensions, the thinking

and feeling styles vary by gender. Approximately 65% of males and 35% of females

prefer the thinking style. In contrast, 65% of females and 35% of males have a preference

for the feeling style.

Children with a thinking style generally make decisions based on what they believe

is fair and logical. They tend to feel little guilt when their decisions affect the feelings of

individuals as long as that decision is one that was based on just and logical procedures.

In addition, these children are inclined to make decisions only after taking sound and

methodical steps to reach a fair conclusion.

Children with a thinking preference tend not to express their feelings. Thus, they

often are reserved and tend to avoid situations where emotions and inner feelings are

exposed. Children who prefer a thinking style may choose to befriend others who have

similar interests. They also prefer to form friendships that have purpose and depth as they

are inclined to lose interest in impersonal small talk and gatherings. Disinterest with

social talk that seems to have little purpose may limit their social interactions. These

children also tend to have deep attachments to their families and tend to be sources of

strength during times of need.









In the classroom, students who prefer a thinking style often are competitive and

tend to enjoy assignments in which logic is used. They also respond well to praise and

recognition for their efforts when it comes in the form of visuals that display their

achievements in comparison to that of their peers. Because these students tend to be

analytical, they enjoy using computers and reference materials. Consistency generally is

important to these students, and they often are skeptical of new information.

Unfortunately, because of their tendency to be analytical and skeptical, at times they can

be critical of themselves and others and hurt others' feelings while candidly expressing

their opinions.

Children with feeling style preferences tend to be diplomats who help to ensure that

classrooms are places where everyone is entitled to harmony and respect. To children

with this style preference, the feelings of others are valued over logic. Thus, children who

prefer a feeling style may make decisions based on how the outcome will affect all

parties involved. These students also are more likely to value what they feel strongly

about over information that is supported by facts. They often are friendly and talkative,

and can be charismatic.

Children who have a preference for a feeling style tend to possess an innate

tactfulness that enables them to understand others. In social settings, they tend to enjoy

the company of others and are inclined to show empathy and support to friends.

Friendship and harmony are a large of part of these children's lives and they tend to enjoy

gathering with friends and getting to know them. However, because of their need for

harmony, these students may become physically ill during times of conflict and stress in

their lives or that of others. Within the family construct, these children tend to be









expressive and affectionate with their siblings and other family members. They tend to

feel a great need for belonging and look for such within family and friends.

Within classrooms, these children generally enjoy working with others and respond

well to collaborative group assignments. They tend to be interested in learning about the

deeds of others and studying history and other subjects related to human nature that

promote self-understanding. Unfortunately, these students at times may become too

involved in the problems of others to the point of neglecting schoolwork. They also have

a difficult time taking sides, thus appearing to be fickle in the eyes of others. Finally,

these children at times may become upset to the point of making cutting remarks which

can be insensitive to others.

Organized and flexible style preferences. The organized/flexible dimension

refers to the propensity to either make decisions promptly or delay them. Approximately

equal numbers of children prefer organized and flexible styles.

Children with organized styles generally thrive when they know what to expect. In

social settings, students who prefer an organized style have an inclination to be selective

about who they befriend, tend to be standard bearers, and may inform others when they

find their behavior objectionable. They tend to prefer a traditional and orderly home

environment. However, because of their inclination toward that which is orderly and

predictable, they may become upset with family members who do not value this type of

environment and disrupt the orderly balance.

In classrooms, these children prefer instruction administered in a structured and

orderly fashion. They also need to feel that they have some control over the course of

their endeavors, including their employment decisions. In addition, they tend to be hard









working, persistent, and finish what they begin. Their need for closure and drawing

conclusions may suggest these students are anxious. They tend to put work before play.

The desks of organized children tend to be orderly and neatly arranged. They may prefer

working on assignments when expectations and grading rubrics are stated clearly. They

may respond well to praise that acknowledges their organized and punctual nature. They

prefer to have routines within the classroom as well as their personal space in which to

organize their materials and belongings. Unfortunately, children with an organized style

may be inclined to worry and may hesitate to learn new approaches to doing things. They

also tend to be inflexible about their feelings towards issues and may reject those who

they feel do not meet their standards.

Children with a flexible style preference enjoy surprises. They generally assimilate

easily into different situations and seem to seek experiences in which they have a chance

to learn of new ideas and viewpoints. Thus, these children are open minded and tend to

be accepting of others. They dislike schedules and prefer to do things at the spur of the

moment. Rules tend to be confining. They are inclined to use their wit and charm as

gateways that will facilitate the acquisition of new experiences.

Socially, children with flexible style preferences often are fun to be around. They

enjoy being with others and tend to be non-judgmental. They tend to feel comfortable in

various types of social situations yet may feel uneasy during times of stress. Within their

family, they tend to offer amusement. They generally have difficulty following externally

imposed rules. Thus, their parents may worry about their carefree nature and lack of

following rules. In classroom, they enjoy exploring new ideas and hands-on activities in

which they can assemble, disassemble, build, or create objects. They also may prefer to









respond to deadlines that are flexible. Unfortunately, children with flexible style

preferences tend to be seen as insensitive by their classmates and may upset them with

ill-timed surprises. They also have an inclination to put off assignments and

responsibilities in light of other tasks. They also may not contribute equally to group

projects or may keep their classmates from doing their work. Finally, they may

disillusion others because of their tendency to not keep commitments.

Trait Theory and Type Theory Relationships

Scholars generally view trait theory as more empirically sound than type theory,

perhaps because its tenets are easier to test with the common statistical procedures

familiar to academic psychology (Newman, 1996b). Differences in the ease with which

the two theories can be empirically examined result from differences in test format and

statistical procedures. Interestingly, despite theoretical and test format differences, the

traits measured by the five factor model are known to correlate with the MBTI types

(McCrae & Costa, 1989; Johnson, 1995).

The NEO-PI Extraversion scale correlated at the .7 level with MBTI

Extraversion/Introversion dimension, the NEO-PI openness factor correlated at the .7

level with the MBTI sensing/intuitive dimension, the NEO-PI agreeableness factor

correlated with the thinking/feeling dimension at the .45 level, and the NEO-PI

conscientiousness factor correlated at the .47 level with the judging/perception dimension

(McCrae and Costa, 1989). McCrae and Costa suggest that correlations at or above .7

suggest that the scales are essentially equivalent. Although correlations in the .40s are

obviously not as strong, they reveal that 16 percent or more of the variance of the

agreeableness and conscientiousness factors are in common with those on MBTI

dimensions. Using a different type indicator derived from the same item pool used to









create the MBTI, Johnson (1995) replicated the McCrae and Costa study and additionally

found a comfort/discomfort dimension on the indicator he used correlated with the NEO-

PI neuroticism factor. Despite these empirical relationships, important conceptual

differences exist among temperament types and traits (Newman, 1996b; Quenck, 1993).

These differences are summarized in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3. Important conceptual differences between trait and type theories. Adapted
with permission from Newman, J. (1996b). Trait theory, type theory and the
biological basis of personality. In J. Newman (Ed.), Measures of thefive
factor model and psychological type: A major convergence of research and
theory. (pp. 63-80). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological
Type (p. 65).
Trait Theories Type Theories
Individual differences result from Individual differences result from qualitatively
quantity of traits possessed distinct inborn preferences
The prominence of a trait is The prominence of a type is determined by the
determined by the amount possessed interactions between the categories one is sorted
and is indicated by score magnitude into, score magnitude is used to determine the
confidence placed in sorting procedures
Normally distributed Distributions are bimodal and skewed

Extreme scores are important for Midpoint separating categories are used for
discrimination and may be considered discrimination, extreme scores are not important
undesirable or diagnostic for discrimination and are not considered
undesirable or diagnostic
Teleological and causal Teleological
Scores may lead to pejorative Focus on normal behavior, negative valences
interpretations not assigned to behaviors

First, trait theory purports that people differ in the quantity of a trait they possess

while type theory purports that people have qualitatively distinct inborn preferences.

Second, the prominence of a trait is determined by the amount possessed and is indicated

by score magnitude. The prominence of a type is determined by the interactions between

the categories into which one is sorted and the score magnitude used to determine the

confidence placed in the sorting procedures. Third, the distribution of traits is normal









while the distribution of types is bimodal and skewed. Fourth, in that trait theory involves

measuring the quantity of the trait that a person possesses, extreme scores may be

considered to indicate too much or too little of a trait and considered undesirable or

diagnostic. Type theory uses midpoint-separating categories to make discrimination.

Extreme scores are not used to make qualitative judgments are not considered diagnostic.

Fifth, trait theory can be interpreted as either teleological or causal (i.e., behavior is

caused by traits) while type theory is clearly teleological in that it assumes that type gives

purpose to behavior that, in turn, is an expression of type. Finally, trait theory is generally

considered to be more pejorative than type theory because type theory is concerned with

discovering normal behavior rather than pathology. Consequently, negative valances are

not assigned to type behaviors.

Practical Uses of Temperament Concepts

Temperament-based intervention approaches view people as active, selective

responders who seek and initiate stimulation and thus play a large role in their own

development (Bates, Wachs, & Emde, 1994). Moreover, people are viewed as agents

whose social interactions affect how others respond to them. Recommendations based on

temperament concepts seldom have empirical validation (Bates et al., 1994). Although

such recommendations should remain general and tentative, well-considered applications

can help people (Bates et al., 1994).

Temperament approaches almost always involve reframing behavior patterns to

enable people to see potential and positive qualities within all traits (Bates et al., 1994).

The approaches include predicting possible conflicts to which these traits can lead,

constructively dealing with challenging behavior, and learning to use effectively traits

that were previously viewed as problematic. Such approaches have the potential to reduce









blame, reduce the use of ineffective approaches to addressing problems, and promote

trying novel actions that can resolve conflict between a child and his or her environment.

Effective temperament-based interventions can accomplish important goals. These

include increasing skills and knowledge, the quality of social interactions, self-esteem,

empathy, and caregiver satisfaction. They also include decreasing caregiver distress and

behavior problems. In contrast to such approaches as applied behavior analysis that focus

on specific target behaviors that are operationalized so that changes in target behavior can

be readily measured, temperament-based interventions must succeed by hitting a largely

unspecified target (Bates et al., 1994). As such, measurement of their efficacy is more

difficult.

Temperament and adjustment appear to have an empirical relation (Rothbart &

Bates, 1998). Certain temperament qualities may predispose children to maladjustment.

Temperament information may be useful when formulating diagnoses and treatment

planning (Garrison & Earls, 1997). Customized, anticipatory guidance of possible

conflicts between children and their environment and how to handle challenging behavior

may help prevent psychopathology. For example, children with an extroverted style, face

to face counseling appears to be more effective than written guidance. Written guidance

may be ineffective and sensitize parents to problems (Cameron et al, 1989, 1991).

Strategic family therapists (Fisch et al., 1981; Haley, 1988) suggest that temperament-

based approaches can change social systems from a problem focus to one of flexible

control that is more accepting of individual differences.

Temperament matching can be achieved by examining the congruence of a child's

temperament with significant others in his environment (e.g., parents; Garrison & Earls,









1987). Based on the outcomes of parent guidance interventions, Thomas and Chess

(1977) concluded that parental response to temperament of their children tends to be

based on congruence with parental goals, standards, and values rather than congruence

with temperament. Thus, when developing interventions, comparisons of parents'

impressions of their child and their expectations or views of what is considered normal

are likely to be more useful than comparisons of child and caregiver temperaments.

Lerner's et al. (1982) Dimensions of Temperament Survey enables parents to make such

distinctions.

Education

Temperament influences school performance. For example, temperament appears

to influence how children approach, engage, and persist with tasks; their classroom

behavior; and how teachers respond to them (Keogh, 2003). Interactions among teachers

and students are more likely to be positive when teachers interpret children's behavior as

temperament-related styles rather than deliberate choices (Keogh, 2003).

Oakland, Glutting, and Horton (1996) presented descriptions of the eight basic

temperament styles measured by the SSQ as well as four Keirseian combinations and

sixteen style combinations. They recommend curriculum and instructional methods that

are likely to best suit specific temperaments and temperament combinations. The intent is

to improve student outcomes by capitalizing on strengths and minimizing the

consequences of weaknesses. These recommendations offer practical guidance based on

intuitive relationships among temperament styles and classroom practices. Some

recommendations based on the eight basic temperament styles are detailed in the

following paragraphs to illustrate the application of temperament concepts to educational

settings.









Children with different learning styles prefer to learn through different types of

activities and settings. Children with an extroverted style preference enjoy activities

where they are able to express their thoughts and opinions. They thrive when teachers

offer constant affirmations and praise. Collaborative learning and peer approaches

constitute group practices they enjoy. Children with an extroverted style preference may

become bored with activities that limit their chance to interact with peers and share their

personal views and ideas.

On the other hand, children with an introverted style tend to prefer to work alone or

with one other student. They enjoy activities that require thoughtful planning and

metacognitive processes. In other words, these children generally enjoy conducting

research on a topic of interest yet resist engaging in activities that require immediate

decisions. They thrive in learning environments where they are given a chance to be

introspective and analytical. Although these children prefer to work alone, they also can

be valuable members in small peer collaborative groups that share their commitments to

work.

Children with a practical style preference are likely to shy away from novel

situations and innovation. They like to learn information that seems useful to them. They

tend to prefer sequential hands-on learning and review of previously learned skills. They

are likely to attend closely to detail and make fewer factual errors. Moreover, they are

likely to work hard to meet tangible and practical goals.

In contrast, children with an imaginative style preference tend to thrive in situations

in which they are presented with novel and innovative information. These children tend

to be creative, gravitate towards peers and educators who are different, and seek









knowledge for its own sake. For them, knowledge does not need to have a practical

function. They generally enjoy learning new information if it adds to or expands existing

views.

Children who prefer a thinking style often communicate briefly and succinctly.

They are more likely to be businesslike in their interactions. They prefer competition and

tasks that involve the application of logic. They often prefer subjects such as math and

science and generally will thrive under learning conditions that embrace methodical

thought processes. Similarly, students with thinking preferences also enjoy tasks in which

they are asked to analyze and apply information. Most university professors display a

thinking style.

In contrast, students who prefer a feeling style are sympathetic and sensitive to

other's feelings and thus they are likely to promote harmony and play the role of

classroom diplomat. They thrive in positive and cooperative learning environments. They

generally enjoy activities that deal with the moral aspects of humanity as well as those

that allow them to express their opinions and feelings. Finally, they enjoy working with

friends and receiving and providing praise. They often do not respond well to activities

that involve competition.

Children who prefer an organized style tend to prefer structured learning

environments and tasks. They generally work hard and are reliable. They often enjoy

surpassing teachers' expectations and show interest when tasks are factual and objective.

They may have difficulty with tasks that have unclear boundaries or expectations or seem

to serve no immediate practical purpose.









In contrast, children with a flexible style tend to prefer unstructured learning

environments and tasks. They generally benefit from high mobility, task variety,

exploration, flexible deadlines, and open-ended assignments. Children with a flexible

style are likely to experience school difficulties.

Notably, there has been little empirical investigation of the efficacy of

temperament-based curriculum and instructional methods. The research that has been

completed indicates that matching temperament type to teaching style does little to

improve achievement. Horton and Oakland (1997) found that matching Keirseian

temperament combinations to teaching style did not significantly improve students'

achievement. Rather, teaching strategies designed to encourage intuitive and feeling

qualities such as cooperation, personal application, and identification with the material

resulted in significantly higher achievement regardless of temperament.

Vocations

Vocational choices appear to be related to temperament types (Keirsey, 1998;

Macdaid, McCaulley, & Kainz, 1986; Oakland, Stafford, Horton, & Glutting, 1996). In

addition to vocational preferences, temperament has also been linked to vocationally

relevant characteristics such as leadership style and responses to leadership styles

(Keirsey, 1998). The MBTI has a long history of use in guiding adult vocational

decisions. Thus, the MBTI is used frequently to improve social interactions and

ultimately promote efficiency and productivity. Typologists at the Center for

Applications of Psychological Type in Gainesville Florida gather data, conduct research,

develop empirically-grounded strategies to use MBTI information for the preceding

purposes, and offer workshops in the United States and abroad to help promote this

information.









The SSQ also can be used to help children and youth identify temperament-related

interests that influence vocational interests and choices (Oakland et al, 1996; Oakland et

al., 2002). Children think about vocational choices at an early age (i.e., at least at age 8),

and their choices are related to temperament type. Strong and uniform relationships

between temperament and some vocations can be identified. Notably, the vocational

interests of people with flexible styles may be limited. Thus, they may need help to find

work that excites them or that they can turn into play (Keirsey, 1998; Oakland et al.,

1996, Oakland et al., 2002).

Although temperament information can be useful in career planning, it is erroneous

to assume all persons with a type of temperament will be happy or successful in the same

type of vocation. Individuals with similar temperaments may have divergent interests and

talents that are, in turn, influenced by dynamic traits. Moreover, temperaments can be

channeled, and opportunities and incentives provided by the social environment can

produce adaptations in dynamic personality variables (McCrae et al., 2000) that

ultimately can influence job satisfaction.

Considerations in the Generalizability of Temperamental Constructs

Developmental Considerations

The temperaments of young children, especially infants, have been found to be

fairly unstable over relatively short intervals of time (Lemery, Goldsmith, Klinnert, &

Mrazek, 1999). However, infant temperament has been found to be a modest predictor of

adult traits (Wachs, 1994). Self-regulation or control and emotional reactivity have been

found to be two of the most important constructs when predicting later behavior (Diener,

2000). As a general principle, individual differences become increasingly stable with age

until at least age 30 (McCrae et al., 2000). The functioning of genes is dynamic and









contributes to individual patterns of aging. Therefore, individual differences and traits are

not entirely stable. Moreover, even when traits are relatively stable, their expression can

change based on contextual factors (McCrae et al, 2000).

McCrae and colleagues (2000) found strong conceptual links among the big five

factors and childhood temperaments. They suggest that the same endogenous traits

underlie child and adult behavior. In contrast to the proposed similarity of trait types

across the life span, they identified age changes in the mean level of traits. For example,

between ages 18 to 30 they found neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience

decrease while agreeableness and conscientiousness increase. These authors could not

extend their research into childhood, as it would require a change in instrumentation from

the NEO Five Factor Inventory. However, the SSQ has been used to study childhood

traits.

Although the NEO is a measure of the five factor model and the SSQ measures

Psychological Type, the two approaches show convergence both empirically and

conceptually. As such, there should be conceptual links among the developmental trends

found with the two measures.

Thayer (1996) identified some developmental trends in the SSQ data. First, she

found that the preference for extraversion tends to increase from age eight to the early

teen years and begins to level off at age thirteen. Second, younger children generally

prefer organized styles and older children generally prefer a flexible style. Third, children

develop a stronger preference for feeling styles as they enter their late teen years. No

important age trends were found for the practical-imaginative dimension. More recently,

Bassett (2004) found that children develop a stronger preference for an imaginative style









between ages 8 and 10, their preferences become more balanced between ages 10 and 15,

then a stronger preference for an imaginative style develops again between ages 15

and 17.

Gender Considerations

Although some scholars (Kohnstamm, 1989) believe differences in temperament

dimensions are uncommon and the origins and conceptual implications of gender

differences are difficult to determine (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1978; Carlson, 2001), gender

differences that have been reported. Compared to females, males exhibit higher sensory

threshold, less adaptability, less predictability, and less persistence. In addition, males are

more likely to be have negative mood and display more difficult temperament patterns.

Using the SSQ temperament dimensions, Thayer (1996) found that boys and girls

differ most distinctly on the thinking-feeling dimension. Seventy-two percent of females

were found to prefer feeling styles while sixty-four percent of males preferred thinking

styles. In addition, boys were found to be somewhat more inclined to both practical styles

and flexible styles.

Based on MBTI data, Hammer and Mitchell (1996) report adult males and females

differ on the thinking-feeling dimension. Sixty-one percent of females prefer feeling

styles while sixty-nine percent of males prefer thinking styles. Males also were more

likely to prefer extroverted, intuitive, and flexible styles.

Cultural Considerations

Attempts to define a broad concept such as culture are difficult. Kluckhohn (1954)

proposed that "Culture is to society what memory is to individuals." The concept of

culture refers to the transmission of shared elements such as norms, values, unstated

assumptions, standard operating procedures, and tools (Triandis & Suh, 2002). During









the last few decades, research methodologies for cross-cultural research have been

improved (Marsella & Leong, 1995).

Two approaches to address cultural issues have been conceptualized by

psychologists conducting cross-national and cross-cultural research: the emic perspective

and the etic perspective. The emic perspective emphasizes understanding cultural

differences from the viewpoint of those being studied (Marsella & Leong, 1995).

Researchers from this perspective attempt to discover indigenous personality constructs

prior to adapting constructs from other cultures. In contrast, etic strategies involve the

importation and adaptation of constructs into new cultures (Church & Lonner, 1998).

Some proponents of cross-cultural psychology suggest that psychological

constructs commonly used in Western psychology have limited applicability in non-

Western cultures. For example, Hsu (1985) argued that personality might have limited

applicability to non-Western cultures. Others, such as Schweder and Bourne (1984) argue

that the very definitions of person and personhood vary across cultures.

Many conclusions about human behavior have been made by Anglos based on their

studies of Anglos (Marsella & Leong, 1995). According to these authors, two major

errors challenge the validity of many of these studies: the errors of omission and

commission. Errors of omission occur when generalizations about human behavior are

made without conducting cross-cultural comparisons. Errors of commission occur when

researchers include participants from multiple cultures in their research yet conceptualize

and conduct research without regard to the points of view of participants from different

cultures (e.g., use nonequivalent instruments and assessment methods across cultural

groups).









Cross-cultural psychologists have proposed several cultural dimensions to explain

the behaviors of cultural populations. Triandis and Suh (2002) identify ecology as an

important link to cultural dimensions. Ecological features include isolating landforms

(e.g., water and mountains, climate, and the mobility of resources).

Dimensions of culture related to ecology include complexity, tightness,

collectivism, and individualism. Complexity refers to the degree of complexity needed to

maintain the functioning of a culture. For example, modern information societies rate

high on this dimension because maintenance is very complex while societies that are

sustained by hunting and gathering rate low on this dimension because maintenance is

less complex. Tightness refers to the degree deviation from normative standards are

tolerated by persons within a society. Tolerance is more common when population

density is low (i.e., there is less opportunity for surveillance) and when people are not

highly inter-dependent.

Other commonly cited cultural dimensions include power distance, uncertainty

avoidance, and masculinity-femininity. Power distance refers to the extent people accept

and expect social hierarchy. Some people may expect and tolerate large inequalities in the

distribution of power between individuals, while others accept a smaller power distance.

This dimension can be expressed by one's propensity to protest or revolt against

establishments that create inequalities. Uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent people

find novelty and ambiguity threatening and act to avoid such uncertainty. Uncertainty

often is avoided through establishing rules and procedures. Masculinity-femininity refers

to the extent people value "masculine" objectives (e.g., money and status) versus

"feminine" objectives (e.g., caring for others and quality of life).









Individualism-collectivism is the most frequently researched and cited cultural

dimension. Individualism-collectivism refers to the extent that people generalize their

sense of responsibility. Individualists think in terms of "I", where "I" also includes people

emotionally close to the individual. Individualists are viewed as inclined to provide for

themselves and their immediate family. Collectivists think in terms of "we", and are

inclined to feel responsible for the larger collectivity.

Studies of individualism-collectivism have implications for trait psychology

(Church & Lonner, 1998). At the individual level, individualism-collectivism is referred

to as idiocentricism-allocentricism. Differences between idiocentrics and allocentrics

include views of self as autonomous or connected, whether group or individual goals are

prioritized, and the impact of personal attributes or roles and norms on behavior. Church

(2000) proposed that temperament traits exist in all cultures, but are more influential on

behavior in individualistic societies than in collective societies. He believes situational

determinants are more important in collectivist societies.

Fijneman et al. (1996) challenged the belief that individualism-collectivism is a

broad value dimension that has a high level of generality. They examined people's

expectations to give and seek support and found, contrary to expectations based on

individualism-collectivist assumptions, that expectations were similar for people who

favored individualist and collectivist orientations. Therefore, they caution against readily

accepting broad cultural concepts such as individualism-collectivism to explain behaviors

displayed by all people in a culture. Such broad concepts are loosely defined and do not

control for confounding variables. Such concepts often are popular for a while and tend

to fade in importance with time. Although such concepts can display face validity, their









variability within cultural groups can be substantial. Broad concepts rise in response to a

perceived lack of attention to between-culture differences and may fall partially due to

the fact that these concepts ignore within-culture differences (e.g, sub-cultures, social

status). Thus, cultural differences observed at the country level often have limited

predictive value at the individual level (Van de Vijver & Poortinga, 2002). The

probability of making errors is rather large when disaggregating psychological variables

from the level of a country to an individual.

Piker (1998) has critiqued the conceptual formulations of cultural psychology as

disappointing. Cultural psychology proposes that each culture is unique, focuses on the

interaction between individuals and culture, and proposes that psychological mechanisms

must be studied in situ. Piker notes that cultural psychology either has ignored or denied

the inquiry into universal psychological mechanisms.

Nevertheless, cultural psychologists have produced important empirical research in

personality and behavior. For example, cultural differences have been found in

experience and expression of emotions (Aune & Aune, 1996). The difficult temperament

constellation proposed by Thomas and Chess (1977) has been found to be culture

dependent (deVries, 1984). deVries examined the survival rates of an African tribe during

a severe drought and found that infants with difficult temperaments had a much higher

survival rates. He concluded that, although easy temperaments are considered more

desirable in industrialized Western culture, a tribe of warriors that values aggressive and

assertive behaviors may find the difficult temperament more desirable. Nevertheless,

such research suggests that the functional value of temperaments and other psychological









concepts should be interpreted, in part, within a cultural context (Super & Harkeness,

1986).

Empirical evidence suggests that some psychological traits are universal. Eysenck

(1991) presented evidence that supported the universality of his three superfactors.

Similarly, five factor model proponents have proposed that the big five traits transcend

differences in language and culture (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae et al., 2000).

However, some researchers have argued the existence of factors indigenous to specific

cultures. For example, Cheung (1996) has argued that a Chinese "tradition" factor exists

and Church, Katigbak, & Reyes (1998) have argued that a "temperamentalness" factor

exists in the Filipino culture.

McCrae and colleagues (2000) suggest that these factors may be social attitudes

rather than traits. Further research that promotes better understanding of these factors is

warranted as their existence challenges the universality of the big five. Moreover, some

differences in factors across culture and age-by-culture mean differences in factors have

been identified.

The widespread international use of the MBTI provides "extensive and compelling

evidence that Jung's theory of personality type is indeed universal" (McCCaulley &

Moody, 2001, p. 301). However, mean differences in temperaments have been identified

cross-nationally using type indicators such as the MBTI and the SSQ (Williams, William,

Qisheng, and Xuemei, 1992; Broer & McCarley, 1999; Carlson, 2001; Bassett, 2001;

Oakland; 2002). For example, Chinese college students from both mainland China and

the People's Republic of China were found to have a higher preference for thinking styles









than U.S. students (Williams, William, Qisheng, and Xuemei, 1992; Broer & McCarley,

1999).

Oakland (2002) compared temperament preferences of children in five countries:

Australia, Costa Rica, Greece, People's Republic of China, and the United States.

Although all children preferred extroversion, Greek and Costa Rican children exhibited

considerably higher preferences while Australian children exhibited discernibly lower

preferences for this style. Although children from all five countries preferred thinking

styles, the preference for this style was higher in children from Australia and lower in

those from the United States. Chinese children preferred practical styles while children

from the other countries preferred imaginative styles. Although children from all five

countries preferred organized styles, those from Costa Rica exhibited higher preferences

and those from Australia lower preferences for this style. According to Oakland, although

cross-cultural differences in the magnitude of preferences can be identified, the children

from the five countries are more similar than different.

Within the United States, the temperament styles of African American, Hispanic,

and White children were compared (Stafford, 1994; Stafford & Oakland, 1996). African

Americans and Hispanics were found to be more practical and organized than Whites,

with African Americans exhibiting higher preference for thinking than Whites. Despite

these differences in mean levels of the types, the structure of the SSQ has been found to

be consistent across different cultural groups within the United States (Stafford, 1994;

Stafford & Oakland, 1996).

Thus, similar to the cultural differences found in the big five research, cultural

differences in psychological types have been found in mean levels of the types, yet the









types themselves seem to remain stable cross-culturally. However, attempts to employ

statistical methods (i.e., using factor analytic or confirmatory factor analytic studies) to

examine the structure of type indicators cross-nationally have not yet been reported.

Measurement

The measurement of temperament may occur in the context of psychological

assessment. Psychological assessment refers to the intensive study of an individual or

individuals during which information from multiple sources such as observations,

interviews, case history, and test scores are integrated (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997).

Information gathered during evaluations is used to make informed decisions on practical

matters. Temperament traits have been found to affect behavior in a various settings.

Thus, temperament measures provide information that can substantially improve the

utility of psychological assessments. Information relevant to developing, using, and

interpreting temperament measures is detailed in the following sections.

Psychological Tests

Psychological tests refer to standardized measures used to sample and evaluate

specified behavioral domains (American Educational Research Association et al., 1999).

Psychological tests can provide information about functioning in a variety of

psychological, social, and educational areas. Psychological test uses include facilitating

research, describing behavior, identifying talent, certifying attainment of knowledge and

other abilities and skills, improving educational and vocational selection, diagnosing

disorders, and monitoring change (Oakland, 2004).

An infinite number of observations exists for most behavioral domains. Tests are

designed to measure a small, carefully selected sample of an individual's behavior

(American Educational Research Association et al., 1999). Temperament consists of









traits that are not directly observable. Rather, temperament traits are latent, inferred from

interrelated sets of observations. Inferred characteristics such as temperament historically

have been referred to as psychological constructs. Due to confusion and debate about the

nature of constructs, the definition of the word construct has been expanded to include

the particular concepts or characteristics a test is designed to measure (American

Educational Research Association et al., 1999).

Measurement error results from influence on test scores by factors that are not

representative of the construct. Error can be both random and systematic (Crocker &

Algina, 1986). Random error is derived from purely chance happenings. Random error

attenuates both the consistency and accuracy of results. Systematic error is derived from

irrelevant characteristics of the test or the person who completed the test. Although

systemic error does not affect consistency, it does affect accuracy and therefore the utility

of results. Because the measurement process is subject to error, responsible test users

must make integrated, evaluative judgments about the validity of inferences based on

error estimates.

Validity

Validity is the most fundamental consideration in developing and evaluating tests

(American Educational Research Association et al., 1999). The concept refers to the

appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific inferences made from test

scores (Messick, 1989). Validity is a unified though multi-faceted concept (Cronbach,

1990). Six facets of construct validity have been identified as important in elucidating the

central issues in test validity: content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external,

and consequential (Messick, 1989).









Content validity refers to the relevance and representativeness of test content.

Substantive validity refers to relationships between observed consistencies in test

responses and theoretical rationales. Structural validity refers to the fit between the test's

scoring structure and the structure of its construct. Generalizability validity involves the

identification of sources of error. The extent to which scores and interpretations can be

generalized across populations, settings, and tasks is examined and the bounds of test

interpretation are established. External validity includes a multitrait-multimethod

examination of convergent and discriminant evidence (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) as well

as criterion relevance and applied utility (Cronbach & Gleser, 1965). Consequential

validity involves the value implications of score interpretation and the actual and

potential consequences of test use. Its primary measurement concern is possible adverse

consequences that arise from sources of invalidity or test misuse (Messick, 1989).

Decisions about what types of validity evidence are important can be clarified by

"...developing a set of propositions that support the proposed interpretation for the

particular purpose of testing" (p. 9; American Educational Research Association et al.,

1999). After these propositions have been articulated, research must be done to

empirically evaluate their soundness. This can be facilitated by examining plausible

alternative hypotheses for test interpretation (American Educational Research

Association et al., 1999). These hypotheses should address concerns that have been

conceived at both a measurement and theory level.

Test Adaptation

A need for assessment tools that can be used with persons from various cultural and

ethnic groups increases to the extent societies are culturally diverse. Children from a

variety of language, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds attend public schools. Assessment









tools normed on a narrow range of students do not meet the needs of this diverse

population. Additionally, increase in the globalization of economic markets, work force

mobility, and the cultural heterogeneity of societies contribute to a need for tests that are

valid in multiple cultures and languages (Tanzer, 2004).

Tests that are adapted, as opposed to those that are translated, may facilitate their

use cross-culturally, cross-nationally, and cross-lingually. Their use saves time and

money that otherwise would be devoted to preparing new tests. Until recently, test

adaptation and the process of establishing score equivalence across cultures have

received little attention (Hambleton, 2003). The transportation of measurement issues

across countries, cultures, and languages often has been fraught with faulty practices

(Merenda, 2004). Notable errors that have occurred during transportation include the

literal translation of items rather their adaptation, failing to re-standardize administration

and scoring procedures, using original norms, and failing to exam and confirm the

structure of the measurement instrument. In response to such faulty practices, the

International Test Commission (ITC) established guidelines for adapting tests across

countries, cultures, and languages. The ITC guidelines stress the importance of specifying

and justifying valid comparisons between test scores obtained in different languages or

cultural groups. Some important issues gleaned from these guidelines and other relevant

sources are described below.

Adaptation approaches. The development and implementation of tests for

multicultural/multicultural markets generally use one of two methods: simultaneous and

successive. The simultaneous test development approach, a newly developed and largely

untested approach, calls for tests to be developed simultaneously for use in multiple









languages and cultures. This approach emphasizes the formation of a committee

composed of persons from various members from predetermined target groups with

which the test will be used. This committee is regarded as an important source of

knowledge about the unique needs as well as the linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies of

the target cultures in which the test will be used (Tanzer, 2004).

The successive approach, a far more common practice, involves the development of

a test that is validated by several test developers. Once the test has been used successfully

for a long period of time, it then is adapted for use in other cultures and/or languages.

During the adaptation phase, the original test developer (or a new team who possess skills

in psychology, test construction, and psychometrics) reviews the original (i.e., source)

test in order to determine the best way to adapt it for the target culture and/or languages.

Translation. The process of translation refers to rendering a test from one

language to another. Tests can be translated closely from the source language to the target

language. Once the test is translated, the items within the test can be changed to enhance

the suitability of the test to varying cultural contexts. Additionally, if the test being

adapted is inappropriate in the new culture, a new test can be assembled using a new item

pool (van de Vijver, Mylonas, Pavlopouloas, & Georgas, 2003).

Test developers typically use one of two methods to translate tests from the source

language to the target language: forward translation and back translation. Using a forward

translation method, a translator or group of translators adapt the test from the source

language to the target language. Equivalence of the two tests then is assessed by a

different group of translators. At times, individuals from the target culture also take the









test. Data from this study may lead to other modifications that could further improve

the test.

Although the forward translation method can be effective, it has some drawbacks.

At times translators may possess more skill in one language than another and test

equivalence is not always judged by individuals with sufficient linguistic, cultural, and

psychometric competence. However, the most significant weakness of this method is that

the language and other abilities of the bilingual translators may not be equivalent to that

of those taking the test. Thus, incorrect assumptions may be made about the skills of the

target population who will be taking the test.

The back translation method is best known and most widely used (Hambleton,

2003). Back-translation translators adapt the test from the source language to the target

language. The adapted test, which then is in the target language, then is reviewed by a

second set of translators and translated back to the source language. Both versions of the

source language measure then are compared for equivalence.

The back translation method also has some drawbacks. For example, confusion

may occur because comparisons between the source and target versions of the test are

done in the source language. In addition, tests that are back-translated and then compared

at first may seem to share equivalence; however, upon closer inspection, the grammatical

structure and spelling of the source test may have been translated incorrectly to the target

language. Therefore, because back translations are done using source language

participants, terms that may seem grammatically correct in the source language may have

little meaning in the target language.









Many errors can be prevented when persons translating tests are qualified

professionals (Hambleton & Patsula, 1999). The belief that knowing two languages

makes a person a candidate for being an acceptable translator is a myth. In fact, their use

can create significant problems in translations. Thus, translators should be fluent in both

languages, knowledgeable of source and target cultures, and knowledgeable of the

constructs being studied. For example, a translator who is knowledgeable of English or

Spanish and has no knowledge of the construct being assessed will not understand the

context in which vocabulary and language will be applied. Words may be translated

correctly without capturing their unique meaning within the context of the construct.

Analogously, it would be similar to translating the steps to an equation without

knowledge of algebra.

Differential item functioning during test adaptation. Differential item

functioning assesses whether test takers who have the same total test score have different

average item scores or different rates of choosing item options (American Educational

Research Association et al., 1999). During test adaptation, differential item functioning

can be used to examine for possible item bias. Differential item functioning may help

identify terms, expressions, or circumstances that are known to the source population but

unknown to the target population. Item bias can occur for many reasons, including item

bias due to poor and vague translations and cultural specific items that may have low

familiarity in some cultures and high familiarity in others (Tanzer, 2004).

Stafford and Oakland (1996) used differential item functioning to examine the SSQ

items for possible bias. These authors examined the responses of three racial-ethnic

groups (i.e., African, Anglo, and Hispanic) within the United States. The results indicated









that these racial-ethnic groups used similar response patterns for most items. For the

African and Hispanic groups, differential item functioning occurred on only three percent

of the items. Differential item functioning occurred on seven percent of the items when

the responses of Anglo and Hispanic groups were examined. When the African and

Anglo groups were compared, differential item functioning occurred on twenty-five

percent of the items, and more than half of those that did are on the Organized-Flexible

dimension.

Sampling guidelines. Test developers must be careful in their selection of

participants on whom data are collected for use in validity studies. Some recommend

selecting participants who share similar background characteristics with target

populations (Van De Vijver and Leung, 1996). Such practices reduce error variance due

to mistaking sample-specific differences for population differences. Differences in

sample characteristics (e.g., motivation) are known to affect responses (Hambleton,

2003). Differences in traditions, norms, values, and how cultures draw meaning from the

world may exist within two or more cultural/language groups. Such differences could

affect the examinee's views of the assessment tool and performance. Researchers

conducting studies across cultures work to ensure the construct being measured by a test

is applicable to the target population. An existing equivalent construct in the target group

must be present. Certain ideas, expressions, and concepts may exist in the source culture

that do not exist in the target culture/cultures. Plausible examples include the indigenous

Chinese tradition (Cheung, 1996) and Filipino temperamentalness (Church, Katigbak, &

Reyes, 1998) factors proposed by researchers involved in the cross-national study of









personality. Moreover, differing socio-political factors in certain cultural/language groups

can affect examinee's scores and should be considered (Hambleton, 2003).

Test format. Responses differ due to the nature of a test's format (Hambleton,

2003). A test format that is both familiar to the target and source populations should be

used. Unfamiliarity with test format can be reduced by using detailed, unambiguous

instructions that include examples and exercises (van de Vijver & Poortina, 1992).

Test administration. Test administrators are responsible for following established

protocols of test administration and maintaining an atmosphere that is conducive to test

performance (Glutting, Youngstrom, Oakland, & Marley, 1996). Problems arising from

test administrations can be lessened by providing test directions that leave little room for

confusion. Test directions should be visual, self-explanatory, and minimize verbal

communication (van de Vijver & Poortinga, 1991). Rating scales usually used to measure

attitudes seem to cause special problems in test administration (Hambelton, 2000). Test

administrators should come from communities being tested, be knowledgeable about

their culture, including language and dialects, possess test administration skills, and

follow standardized procedures. To this end they should know how test administration

can affect validity and reliability of tests, avoid vague communication, and not deviate

from test instructions.

Construct equivalence. Construct equivalence should be established when

adapting or developing tests for cross-national use. That is, the concept the test is

designed to measure should be equivalent or nearly equivalent across different groups

(Hambleton, 2003). Construct equivalence subsumes measurement equivalence and

theoretical equivalence.









Measurement equivalence refers to the equality of factorial structure across groups.

Thus, a test should measure the same number of factors across groups, and patterns of

factor loadings should be similar. Moreover, factor loading estimates and measurement

error estimates should be similar.

Theoretical equivalence refers to the equality of the theoretical structure. That is, a

test should have the same pattern of factor covariance, no significant differences in factor

covariance estimates, and no significant differences in factor variance estimates.

Purpose of the Study

Interest in developing tests that can be used internationally has flourished in recent

years. As such, attempts to establish the construct equivalence of tests cross-nationally

are important. Research investigating the structure of type indicators cross-nationally

using factor analytic or confirmatory factor analytic studies has yet to be published.

Moreover, evidence of attempts to establish the cross-national construct equivalence of

either traits or types for children could not be located.

The purpose of this study is to examine the construct equivalence of a measure of

children's temperaments cross-nationally. This research examines whether the SSQ, as

used in 8 countries, has etic (cultural-universal) qualities. In other words, does the SSQ

measure the same temperament qualities when used with children in various cultures. If

the evidence suggests that the SSQ measures the same temperament qualities across

countries, children's temperaments, as measured by the SSQ, may assess attributes that

transcend cultures. If the evidence suggests otherwise, SSQ interpretations for children

outside the United States should be guided in light of differences in the constructs

underlying temperament preferences.






67


Research Questions

Our study addressed the following three questions:

* Specific aim 1. Does the SSQ measure the same four bipolar dimensions among
children from Australia, China, Costa Rica, Gaza, Nigeria, the Philippines, the
United States, and Zimbabwe?

* Specific aim 2. If not, what is the structure of the SSQ in these countries?

* Specific aim 3. Are the intercorrelations of the dimensions similar across
countries?














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Participants

Participants were 11,784 children from Australia, China, Costa Rica, Gaza,

Nigeria, the Philippines, the United States, and Zimbabwe. All of the students attend

public school. Data samples from some of the countries were excluded from certain data

analyses if they are found to be insufficient in size or quality.

Australian sample. The Australian sample included 369 students (55% female),

ranging in age from 9 through 15 (25% in each of the following ages: 9, 11, 13, and 15).

They attend public primary and secondary school in the provincial city of Bendigo, in the

state of Victoria, Australia. Students were drawn from a cross-section of socio-economic

backgrounds.

Chinese sample. The Chinese sample included 400 students (50 % female),

ranging in age from 9 through 15 (25% in each of the following ages: 9, 11, 13, and 15),

attending public schools in Taiyuan, the provincial capital of Shanxi (the largest city in

China). Students were drawn from a cross-section of socio-economic backgrounds.

Costa Rican sample. The Costa Rican sample included 432 students (51%

female), ranging in age from 9 through 15 (25% in each of the following ages: 9, 11, 13,

and 15) attending both public and private schools. Most participants attend schools that

serve middle class families.

Gaza sample. The Gaza sample included 395 students (55% female), ranging in

age from 9 through 16 (11% age 9, 14% age 10, 10% age 11, 14% age 12, 11% age 13,









15% age 14, 10% age 15, and 14% age 16) attending public school in Gaza City.

Students were drawn from a cross-section of socio-economic backgrounds.

Nigerian sample. The Nigerian sample consists of 400 students (50% female)

ranging in age from 9 through 15 (25% in each of the following age groups: 9, 11, 13,

and 15), attending school. Students were drawn from a cross-section of socio-economic

backgrounds.

Philippines sample. The Philippine sample consists of 400 students (50% female)

ranging in age from 9 through 15 (25% in each of the following age groups: 9, 11, 13,

and 15), attending school. Students were drawn from a cross-section of socio-economic

backgrounds.

United States sample. The United States participants included 7,902 students (50

% female), ranging in age from 8 through 17 (7% age 8, 8% age 9, 12% age 10, 15% age

11, 14% age 12, 15% age 13, 12% age 14, 8% age 15, 5% age 16, 4% age 17).The data

were obtained during the standardization of the SSQ using a stratified design

representative of the 1990 U.S. Bureau of the Census data.

Zimbabwean sample. The Zimbabwean sample included 492 students (54.5%

female), ranging in age from 8 through 14 (25% ages 8 and 9, 25% agel0, 23% age 11,

14% age 12, 12% ages 13 and 14), attending school. Students were drawn from a cross-

section of socio-economic backgrounds.

Instrumentation

The Student Styles Questionnaire (SSQ; Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996) is a

69-item self-report temperament scale. The SSQ utilizes a two-option per item, forced-

choice response format. Items have a third grade readability level in English. It was

designed to be used with children ages 8 through 17.









The SSQ consists of four empirically-derived primary dimensions. These

dimensions are measured on bipolar scales, and their theoretical structure is based on

Jungian typology theory: extroversion-introversion, practical-imaginative, thinking-

feeling, organized-flexible. These dimensions yield eight styles that in turn yield 16

possible combinations of four preferred styles based on the Myers-Briggs model.

The SSQ scores appear to be fairly stable over time, with test-retest reliabilities

ranging from .67 to .80. An average test-retest reliability coefficient of .74 was obtained

over a 9 month period, using a Fisher's z transformation applied to coefficients from the

four scales. The use of dichotomous data restricts variance at the item level and precludes

a true estimate of internal consistency. Measures of internal consistency coefficients

generally over-estimate a test's reliability when used with dichotomous data and thus

were not used. Factor analytic data show that the internal structure of the test is stable and

consistent with the theoretical framework of the instrument for persons who differ by age,

gender, and race/ethnicity (Oakland, Glutting, and Stafford, 1996; Stafford & Oakland,

1996).

Convergent validity studies reveal that MBTI dimensions correlate well with three

of the four SSQ scales for a group of 12 to 17 year-old students. In particular, a joint

canonical correlation analysis revealed strong correlations between the extroverted-

introverted, thinking-feeling, and practical-imaginative scales from the SSQ and MBTI.

The aforementioned relationships are reported as canonical loadings, and range in

magnitude from .84 to .96. Canonical loadings equal to or greater than an absolute value

of .80 are considered substantial (Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996).









Divergent validity studies indicate that the SSQ constructs are distinct from

academic achievement and intelligence. Many of these correlations are less than .1. None

of these correlations exceed .3.

The suitability of the SSQ for use with students in Australia, Costa Rica, Gaza,

Nigeria, The People's Republic of China, the Philippines, and Zimbabwe was reviewed in

light of guidelines established for the translation of tests by the International Test

Commission (Hambleton, 2003). For example, issues pertaining to the suitability of item

content, format and response style were reviewed by Dr. Oakland's collaborators in each

of these countries.

Upon review, the following collaborators determined that the SSQ was suitable for

use with students in Australia, Costa Rica, Gaza, Nigeria, The People's Republic of

China, the Philippines, and Zimbabwe, respectively: Dr. Michael Faulkner, professor and

Head of Department, Institute for Education, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia;

Ana Lorena Mata who served as a school psychologists in Los Angeles for almost 20

years prior to her return to her native Costa Rica; Dr. Mohammad Adnan Alghorani,

Assistant Professor of Psychology, The University of Oman; Dr. Andrew Mogaji,

professor of psychology, University of Lagos, Nigeria; Dr. Lu Li, a professor at the

Shanzi Medical University, Shanxi Taiyuan, People's Republic of China; Carmelo

Callueng, professor of education at the Philippines National University, Manila,

Philippines; and Dr. Elias Mpofu, professor of rehabilitation psychology at Pennsylvania

State University. All five are fluent in English.

Procedure

The SSQ is an English language test. The language used in this test was found to be

suitable for use in Australia, Nigeria, The Philippines, and Zimbabwe. However,









translations were needed prior to its use in Costa Rica, Gaza, and the People's Republic of

China. The SSQ was adapted using back-translation sequential methods in these three

countries. The SSQ in English (i.e., SSQ-E1) was translated into Spanish (i.e., SSQ-S) for

use in Costa Rica by Ana Lorena Mata, into Arabic (i.e., SSQ-A) by Dr. Algohorgani for

use in Gaza, and into Cantonese (i.e., SSQ-C) for use in the People's Republic of China

by Dr. Lu Li. Colleagues fluent in both English and their native language translated the

SSQ-S, SSQ-A, and SSQ-C back into English (SSQ-E2). SSQ-E1 and SSQ-E2 were

compared to determine their equivalence. Adjustments in language were made in SSQ-S,

SSQ-A, and SSQ-C as needed.

The SSQ was administered to groups of students in their schools. The students

were asked to read and mark items appropriately, consistent with the test's directions.

Students used either an answer form or marked the items directly on the test booklet.

Psychologists were available to offer assistance and answer questions.

Data Analysis Procedures

Raw scores were used for data analyses. Raw scores are more appropriate than

normalized scores in this type of research because the distribution of raw scores on the

extroverted-introverted, practical-imaginative, thinking-feeling, and organized-flexible

dimensions may not be normal. Moreover, normalized and weighted scores would distort

the actual score distribution.

The SSQ uses dichotomous items. Data analysis of dichotomously-scored items is

considerably more complicated than data from items that are continuously scored (e.g., a

Likert scale). The Jungian theoretical structure of the test requires a force-choice format.

Jungian theory holds that people may be defensive about their preferences and thus may

report their true preferences inaccurately if a Likert type system is used. The forced-









choice format is thought to be less susceptible to this type of response bias. A response

format that uses a broader scale may sacrifice important clinical information pertaining to

preferences in favor of providing more suitable empirical data for examination of

construct validity.

Unfortunately, when using dichotomous variables, attempts to compute Pearson

correlation coefficients for all relationships may not be possible due to restricted

variance. Item parceling can be used when working with dichotomous data (Oakland,

Glutting, & Horton, 1996). Item parceling involves combining items into groups, thus

producing larger variances.

However, item parceling procedures have disadvantages. First, as parcels must be

chosen, these procedures are more subjective than analyzing individual items. In addition,

an examination of the factor loadings of individual items is not possible using this

approach. The test authors (Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996, page 183-184) indicate

that an approach involving the repeated factoring of parcels, opening a different parcel

during each successive factoring, can be used to avoid problems associated with both the

factoring of individual dichotomous items and the factoring of item parcels.

In addition, tetrachoric correlations can be computed when using dichotomous data.

These correlations are computed using a formula for binary data. Binary data may violate

the distributional assumptions of the maximum likelihood method. However, the use of

tetrachoric correlations allows for the retention of binary data because observed

covariances were corrected prior to being analyzed in a CFA. In contrast to item

parceling, this approach eliminates the need for a priori grouping of items.









Several methods exist for engaging in the analysis of test structure across countries:

factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis, and covariance structure

analysis (van de Vijver & Leung, 1996). Each is described below.

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis involves the examination of covariation among observed variables

in order to identify the most robust unobservable (latent) factors that contribute to test

performance (Byrne, 1998). The technique also involves examining and interpreting how

and to what extent the observed variables are related to the latent factors. The extent of

such relationships is represented by factor loadings. When more than one latent variable

is identified, hierarchical analyses of these latent variables can be performed to determine

whether a higher-order latent factor exists. An exploratory factor analytic approach is

used when no prior knowledge exists as to whether the observable variables actually

measure the intended latent construct (Byrne, 1998).

A strategy for applying factor analysis in cross-cultural and cross-national analyses

of test structure is discussed by van de Vijver and Leung (1996). This strategy also can be

applied to cross-national analyses of test structure. First, they recommend determining if

the same number of factors is evident within different countries, with factors selected

based on amount of variance each factor explains. In reference to the SSQ, the underlying

dimensions are bipolar. Thus, a two stage factor-analytic process is required to

differentiate the components of the dimensions. The dimensions of the test are thought to

be essentially independent. When factors are thought to be independent, principal axes

factor analysis using varimax rotations has been recommended in order to rotate the

structure orthogonally (Merenda, 1997).









Second, if the same number of factors is found in the different groups being

compared, then test items are examined to determine if the items correlate with the same

underlying factors in each group. Third, the equality of the factor loadings can be

determined by using a procedure that begins with target rotations. This procedure

involves arbitrarily choosing one set of factor loadings as a target and rotating the axes of

the other factor loading matrices so that agreement between the sets is optimized.

Then, the similarity of the loadings is evaluated during sequential comparisons

through a coefficient of agreement (e.g., Tucker's coefficient of agreement; Tucker,

1951). The powerfulness of this approach is questionable (van de Vijver and Leung,

1996). In addition, the influence of nonequivalent items is not reflected in the coefficient

of agreement.

Multidimensional Scaling and Cluster Analysis

Multidimensional scaling (MDS) or cluster analysis can be used to compare the

structure of cross-cultural and cross-national data sets. MDS refers to a class of

techniques used to uncover the underlying structure of data (Kruskal & Wish, 1978).

MDS procedures use proximities as input. Proximities refer to quantitative values

assigned to datum that collectively indicate similarities and differences in the data.

In reference to the SSQ, proximities could be derived from either intercorrelations

of or squared distances between items. The output of MDS procedures consists of spatial

representations that display the geometric configurations of data points along dimensions.

Researchers can vary the number of dimensions in the output, thus allowing them to

identify the most interpretable and theoretically parsimonious structure. A goodness-of-fit

(or more aptly, a "badness-of-fit") measure known as stress is used to determine the

number of dimensions needed to best describe the structure. Stress is defined as the









square root of a normalized residual sum of squares. The larger the stress values, the

poorer the fit.

As with factor analysis, a rotation problem occurs when attempting to compare the

results from different countries. The same approach used during factor analytic

procedures (i.e., performing a target rotation and using an index of agreement) can be

used to examine similarity of the solutions (van de Vijver and Leung, 1996). However,

there are no known published examples of research in which target rotations have been

applied during the cross-cultural analysis of structure.

Cluster analysis refers to a set of multivariate statistical procedures used to form

homogenous clusters of data points derived from similarities within data sets

(Aldenderfer & Bashfield, 1984). In reference to the present study, clusters obtained

during analyses would represent temperament dimensions or other factors that might be

measured by the SSQ. Although possibly suitable for cross-cultural and cross-national

research, cluster analysis rarely has been implemented with these forms of data.

Covariance Structure Analysis Techniques

The data could be submitted to covariance structure analysis techniques in order to

examine cross-national differences in test structure. These techniques attempt to explain

relationships among a larger set of observed variables in terms of a smaller number of

unobserved variables. Relationships among the observed variables are characterized by

covariances that are contained in a covariance matrix (Long, 1983b).

The theory behind this approach typically holds that the unobserved variables are

"causal" processes assumed to produce the pattern of relationships (i.e., structure) among

multiple observed variables (Byrne, 1998). The causal processes are represented by a

series of regression equations. This multivariate technique allows for the simultaneous









testing of many variables, thus allowing complex structural models to be hypothesized

and tested statistically in order to determine the extent of their consistency with the data.

Various goodness-of-fit measures are used (Byrne, 1998). Using confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA; Joreskog, 1969), the structure of the SSQ can be specified a priori and

either confirmed or rejected in favor of competing models based on empirical findings.

Data Analysis Procedures used for the Present Study

In the present study, the extent to which the SSQ measures the four primary

dimensions based on Jungian typology theory was examined. The structural equation

modeling (SEM) technique of CFA is commonly used and often preferred by

contemporary researchers who conduct empirical tests of hypotheses about tests with

latent structures (Keith, 1997), and therefore was selected as the most appropriate method

for the present research purposes. Tetrachoric correlation matrixes and covariance

matrixes were analyzed using AMOS 5.0 (Arbuckle, 2003) computer software following

the method of maximum likelihood, which assumes a multivariate normal distribution.

CFA was used to examine the SSQ structure for each country separately and in

simultaneous multi-country comparisons. CFA allows for the empirical testing of theories

and hypotheses, which researchers accomplish by setting substantively motivated

constraints (Long, 1983a). The following constraints were imposed:

* Intercorrelations of latent factors

* Specifying which observed variables are affected by which latent factors

* Constraining the error variances of observed variables to zero when necessary due to
identification problems

The four bipolar dimension model, as well as plausible competing models (i.e., a

model with three bipolar dimensions and a hierarchical model) were tested for each









country. These alternative models were chosen based on empirical and theoretical

rationales. A model with three bipolar dimensions was chosen to test the hypothesis that

the data better conform to a simpler, more parsimonious model. Had this hypothesis been

accepted, a two bipolar dimension would have been examined. A five dimension model

also could have been examined. If, for example, the SSQ contained items that appeared to

be feasible measures of neuroticism, a neuroticism factor could have been added.

However, this was not done because a rationale for assigning SSQ items into a fifth

bipolar dimension was not identified. A hierarchical model was chosen to test the

hypothesis that the data better conform to a model containing a second-order factor in

addition to four bipolar dimensions.

Model fit for individual countries was evaluated using fit indexes that indicate how

a specified model of interest compares with an independence model in which all observed

variables are uncorrelated. Fit indexes are used to decide whether the null hypothesis of a

close fit of the model to the data should be rejected. They may be interpreted more aptly

as poorness of fit indices because they do not confirm models, only disconfirm them.

There are dozens of fit indexes described in the SEM literature. Because these indexes

reflect different facets of model fit, multiple indexes are presented. The fit indices used to

evaluate individual models evaluated included the following:

* Chi-square test
* Ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom
* Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI)
* Comparative Fit Indices (CFI)
* Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)
* Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)

The chi-square test has degrees of freedom equal to the difference between the

number of observations and the number of parameters. This statistic is interpreted as the









difference between the model specified by the researcher and a just-identified version of

it. Small and nonsignificant values are desired. However, the chi-square test typically is

not used as a significance test because, when sample sizes are large, the statistic may be

significant even though differences between the observed and model-implied covariances

are small. The ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom provides a measure of fit that is

less sensitive to sample size. Although there is no definitive value used to establish

acceptability, a ratio of less than 3 is frequently suggested (Kline, 1998).

The GFI is considered to be more standardized and less sensitive to sample size

than the chi-square. The GFI is interpreted as the proportion of observed covariance

explained by the model-implied covariance. The CFI is an index with an analogous

rationale, it indicates the proportion in the improvement of fit of the model specified by

the researcher relative to an independence model (i.e., the observed variables are assumed

to be uncorrelated). Although the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) is similar to the CFI, it

includes a correction for model complexity. Acceptable fit for the GFI, CFI, and TLI

indexes is considered to be indicated by values exceeding .90 (Kline, 1998).

The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is a standardized

summary of the average covariance residuals. Covariance residuals are the difference

between the observed and model-implied covariances. The smaller the value, the better

the fit. Values less than .05 generally are considered indicative of acceptable fit (Browne

& Cudeck, 1993).

Fit indexes show only the average fit of a model. Some parts may fit well while

other parts may fit poorly. Standardized regression weights were examined in order to

examine the model more closely and to better understand its theoretical meaningfulness.









When comparing competing models or making multi-group comparisons, fit

indices useful for making such comparisons are emphasized. For example, the change in

chi-squared, along with degrees of freedom and associated probability, were used to

make such comparisons. The Akaike Information Criterion also was used. This criterion

compares models that may not necessarily be nested. Lower criterion values indicate

better fit. In addition, the GFI, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA were examined. Moreover,

invariance in factor loadings, factor correlations, (i.e., factor structure), and measurement

residuals (i.e., error in the prediction of latent factors) were tested in multi-country

comparisons.

Notably, the SSQ utilizes item weights to evaluate the strength of children's

preferences. That is, some items are weighted more heavily than others in the scoring

system. Item weighting was derived empirically by analyzing the standardization sample.

Such weights are subject to capitalization on chance variation within the particular

sample. The present study is concerned with internal structure of the SSQ across samples

from a variety of countries. Therefore, item weights were not considered in the CFA

models tested.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Five sets of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were needed to test the hypotheses

in this research. The first set involved testing the structure of the SSQ using a first-order

CFA model with the sixty-nine items loading on four bipolar temperaments, as specified

in Appendix B of the SSQ manual. This appendix delineates item scales and weights. The

model tested is shown in Figure 4-1. A statistical solution could not be calculated for

most countries because many items did not have sufficient variance. Restricted item

variance poses a statistical problem commonly encountered when using binary data. Due

to this problem, a second set of analyses was carried out.

The second set involved testing the validity of a first-order CFA model of item

parcels the test authors derived from factor analytic and heuristic considerations. More

specifically, a factor analysis of correlations among dichotomous item scores provided

factor loadings, and items were combined into four- to five-item parcels based on the

similarity of these loadings. This model is shown in Figure 4-2. Some estimates of parcel

variance were found to be unreasonably large. This problem was addressed by

constraining variance parameters to zero as needed. However, the unreasonably large

estimates raise questions about the correctness of the model. Merely constraining

problematic parameters does not address these issues fully. Therefore, a third set of CFA

was needed.





82





1 1J
1 \ I :






i \
Fig \ Sy

i 92

iF~ iiF~

if E4F~ iF-
i5p
i\ \
y/ \ 1^
/~/ / yk-^
^\ /// Iu

i^'-f~l- i.%:^'^



i i n- 3


ig r \\- \ t y i
Fi I-O/ 1. Sit-nn item^ Stdn \tl' usioniemd















































Figure 4-2. Parcel model.

The third set of CFA involved testing the validity of a first-order CFA model of

modified item parcels. The modifications were guided by the assumption that model fit

was reduced by unspecified relationships between certain items. The modification

process is described in greater detail later along with the results obtained from using this

set of CFA. The model is shown in Figure 4-3.








































Figure 4-3. Modified model.

Fourth, a three bipolar temperament model (Figure 4-4) was examined. Fifth, a

hierarchical CFA model (Figure 4-5) was examined. The fourth and fifth sets of CFA

were completed to examine plausible rival hypotheses that either a three-factor model or

a hierarchical model best represents the data. An examination of competing hypotheses is

an integral part of strong programs of construct validation (Keith & Kranzler, 1999).

When possible during each of the five sets of CFA, analyses involved examining model

fit for individual countries as well as multi-group comparisons. The rationale that guided

the progression of these five sets of analyses is shown in Figure 4-6.









The first data analysis approach attempted was to conduct a first-order CFA of the

69 SSQ items and their proposed four-factor relationship. Specifically, this approach tests

the hypothesis that children's temperament is a multidimensional construct composed of

the four SSQ bipolar styles. The model (Figure 4-1) specified relationships between

individual items and the four bipolar styles based on the listing of items and their related

scales in Appendix B of the SSQ manual (Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996). In order

to enhance the visual clarity of this figure, item error parameters are not represented.

However, these parameters were included in CFA analyses.

The latent content variables (i.e., the bipolar styles) were allowed to correlate.

Factor loadings and measurement errors were set free to vary for most observed

variables. In that unobserved variables have no definite metric scale, some parameters

had to be fixed to satisfy this scaling requisite. Specifically, one factor loading in each set

of factor loadings thought to measure the same latent variable was constrained to 1.0.

Likewise, in that error is an unobserved variable and therefore has no definite metric

scale, the regression weights associated with error were constrained to 1.0 for each item.

SSQ item responses were used as input, and matrixes of tetrachoric correlations

were computed using a formula for binary data. The obtained matrixes of tetrachoric

correlations were used as input for CFA analysis. The model specified is overindentified.

This means the ability to calculate a unique estimate of every parameter is theoretically

possible. However, overidentification is a necessary but insufficient condition to resolve

the identification problem (Byrne, 2001).














































Figure 4-4. Three-factor model


The model in Figure 4-1 was tested empirically for the United States sample only.

The resulting fit indices suggest that the model provides inadequate fit to the US data.

Modification indexes indicate that model fit could be greatly improved by allowing some

measurement error terms to correlate. However, allowing measurement error terms to









correlate without substantive reason would result in a theoretically meaningless model

that does not answer any questions related to this study.

1 1 1 (R
Cerr]-- social 1- )I







err iscipline X



1rr creativity 1
Cerr assert M




~~-e ingpenuitnes









Inspection of correlation matrixes revealed a few out-of-bounds correlations. Thus,
ICT err : creativity 1




Figure 4-5. Hierarchical model.


A matrix is nonpositive definite when it contains an out-of-bounds correlation,

resulting in the failure of certain mathematical operations with the matrix (Kline, 1998).

The use of tetrachoric correlations and multicollinearity (i.e., highly correlated items) are

known causes of nonpositive definiteness.

Inspection of correlation matrixes revealed a few out-of-bounds correlations. Thus,

nonpositive definiteness of sample correlation matrixes prohibited the evaluation of this

CFA model with data from other countries. Also, many correlations were found to be









close to zero. An attempt to identify specific problematic items that may have contributed

to this problem was unsuccessful. Likewise, examination of data from multiple countries

suggests that out-of-bounds correlations obtained when correlating specific item pairs

tend to be specific to that country. The use of item parcels in subsequent analyses

eliminated both the need for tetrachoric correlations and multicollinearity. In summary,

the first set of analyses provided little useful information for answering the research

questions proposed in this study.

The parcels used in the second set of analyses were obtained using factor analytic

and heuristic methods. A review of the SSQ test manual lead to the belief that factor

loadings obtained from exploratory factor analyses and content validity were primary

considerations used to assign items into parcels. Some test items were placed into

multiple parcels and used to measure two different bipolar temperament dimensions.

These parcels, as delineated in the SSQ manual, are presented in Appendix A. The model

is shown in Figure 4-2.

This model specified factor loadings between the four bipolar styles and the parcels

purported to measure them. The latent content variables (i.e., the bipolar styles) were

allowed to correlate. With the exception of reference variables, factor loadings were set

free to vary. Measurement errors were set free to vary, while the regression weights

associated with these terms were constrained to 1.0.

The fit indexes for the eight countries in this study are detailed in Table 4-1.

Standardized regression weights and correlations between the bipolar styles are presented

in Appendix B. Notably, certain error parameters were not identified in some samples.









1st Set

The sixty-nine item Student Style's Questionnaire model provides inadequate fit to the
US data and could not be used to evaluate data from other countries.


2nd Set

The parcel model provides good fit for all countries except Gaza. Multi-group
comparison indicates reasonably good fit; however, the chi-square difference between the
unconstrained model and a model with factor loadings constrained to be equal across
groups is statistically significant and indicative of noninvariance. Also, a number of
estimates of parcel variance had to be constrained due to their magnitude.


3rd Set

Post hoc re-specification of item parcels was undertaken so that fewer constraints (i.e,
estimates of parcel variance) had to be relaxed. The development of this modified model,
that was guided by modification indexes and consideration of item content, allows for
better examination of construct relevant variance (i.e., the degree to which scores
measure processes that are relevant to the constructs of interest and not to irrelevant
constructs or measurement error). This model provides good fit for all countries;
however, the variance of measurement error terms for discipline and creativity parcels
had to be constrained to zero in order to achieve identification for the Zimbabwe sample.
In addition, for the Australian sample, the correlation between El and OF and the
correlation between El and PM had to be constrained to zero to achieve identification.
Simultaneous examination indicates reasonably good fit; however, the chi-square
difference between the unconstrained model and a model with factor loadings constrained
to be equal across groups is statistically significant and indicative of noninvariance.


4th and 5th Sets

The three-factor and hierarchical models were examined to test plausible rival
hypotheses. The three-factor model was identified for only three countries (i.e., Australia,
China, and Costa Rica) and provides a less adequate fit than competing models. The
hierarchical model provides the best fit for Australia, China, Gaza, Nigeria, and USA
data.

Figure 4-6. Rationale for analyses.


This problem was addressed by constraining these variances to zero. The

measurement error for parcel tfl was constrained to zero for Australia. The measurement