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

Material Information

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

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic achievement ( jstor )
Analysis of variance ( jstor )
Associate degrees ( jstor )
Graduates ( jstor )
Intuition ( jstor )
Jungian psychology ( jstor )
Nursing ( jstor )
Obstetrics ( jstor )
Pediatrics ( jstor )
Personality inventories ( jstor )
Nurses and nursing -- Examinations, questions, etc ( lcsh )
Personality ( lcsh )
Prediction of scholastic success ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

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

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
000163043 ( ALEPH )
AAS9393 ( NOTIS )
02733144 ( OCLC )
Classification:
RT73 .W544 1978 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text














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













By

DAVID D. WILLIAMS


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






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1975


















To



Mary who first sparked my

interest in research




and



Dorris who believed I could do it


















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Grateful acknowledgment is extended to all those who assisted in

the completion of this study, but especially to:

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

his interest and guidance;

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

interest and support;

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

personal support and interest throughout the course of the study;

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

include a sample of graduates from Santa Fe Community College;

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

detail;

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

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

and matchless performance;

The family and friends who were always ready with words of

encouragement;

The graduates, who made this study possible.





















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .

LIST OF TABLES .

ABSTRACT . .


CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .


Purpose of the Study .

Questions for Study .

Delimitations of the Study .

Definition of Terms .


Need for the Study .

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .


Jungian Concepts .

Relationship of Type to Scholastic


Summary .

CHAPTER III METHOD OF STUDY .


The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

The State Board Examination .

Description of the Sample .

Collection of Data .


. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .


. .

. .


. .

Performance


. .

. .

. .

. .

. .


Treatment of Data .


Page



iii

vi

viii

1


3

3

4


4

6

7


7

9

13

15

16

19

20

21















CHAPTER IV






CHAPTER V











APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C


BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIOGRAPHICAL


ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA .

Analysis of the Data .

Interpretation of Data .

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

Summary . .

Conclusions .

Discussion . .

Recommendations .

CHARACTERISTICS OF MYERS-BRIGGS TYPES .

DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES .

BOARD SCORES COMPARED ACCORDING TO El AND SN
PREFERENCES .




SKETCH . .


Page

















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

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

2. DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES BY SCHOOL .. 22

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

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

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

6. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR PEDIATRIC SCORES 28

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

8. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR PSYCHIATRIC SCORES 29

9. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TOTAL BOARD SCORES 30

10. MEAN BOARD SCORES BY SCHOOL ... 30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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











Table


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7ii


Page











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



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



By

David D. Williams

June, 1975

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


This study was designed to test the hypothesis that there exists

a relationship between Jungian psychological type, as measured by the

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

formance on Nursing State Board Examinations.

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

ates, and 177 baccalaureate graduates.

As a result of MBTI testing, all participants were classified

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

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

Sixteen type classifications were possible.

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

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

4. Obstetric Nursing, and 5. Psychiatric Nursing.

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

relationship between total Boards and psychological type and the null


*yiii












hypothesis of no relationship between performance on Board subscales

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

null hypothesis that performance by type would not differ between

associate degree and baccalaureate graduates could not be rejected at

the .05 level.

The Scheffe Method of multiple comparison and the Median Test were

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

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

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

one type which performed consistently higher or consistently lower on

either the total or on the subscales.











Chairman

















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY


One of the many problems continually confronting nursing edu-

cators is the prediction of student success on State Board Examinations

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

cessfully.

The problem arises at the time students are admitted to programs

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

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

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

complete the program and are likely to pass licensing examinations.

Throughout the educational program, instructors are confronted

with the problem of identifying students needing remediation prior to

challenging the Boards. Once identified, suitable learning experiences

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

educational activities would be beneficial to the candidate for remedi-

ation is needed.

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

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

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

potential for satisfactory performance could be identified early for

special assistance or counseled into programs for which they are better

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

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











while baccalaureate degree programs tend to be theory oriented.

There have been efforts to predict performance on Boards. The

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

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

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

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

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

The NLN Achievement battery requires academic experience in nursing;

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

scribing individual learning experiences.

Others have found verbal performance on the Scholastic Aptitude

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

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

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

prescriptive of learning activities to assist borderline students.

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

found a significant positive correlation between Wechsler Adult Intel-

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

clues as to learning styles.

A review of the literature reveals only one study investigating

the relationship between personality traits and performance on Boards.

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

formance, investigators concluded that success or failure on Boards is

independent of the types of personality traits the Minnesota Multiphasic

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

sion, hysteria, etcetera (23).

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











uses the mind rather than indices of pathological personality traits?

Jungian personality variables as measured by the Myers-Briggs

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

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

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

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

fully to identify learning styles and to prescribe individual learning

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

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

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

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

identify students needing special assistance, as a basis for prescribing

educational experiences, and as a basis for counseling students into

the appropriate educational program.



Purpose of the Study


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

exists a relationship between Jungian psychological type and performance

on State Board Examinations for nursing.

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

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in predicting Board performance by

type of program.



Questions for Study


This study sought to find answers to the following questions:











1. Can psychological types be identified that perform

significantly different than other types on Boards?

2. Are there types that perform consistently well on

Boards or on sections of Boards?

3. Are there types that score consistently low on

Boards or on sections of Boards?

4. Is performance on Boards by type independent of

educational setting?



Delimitations of the Study


This study was delimited to 135 nurses who graduated from

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

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

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

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Boards were included.



Definition of Terms


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

Associate Degree Graduate An individual graduated from a

Junior College program of nursing.

Baccalaureate Degree Graduate An individual graduated from

a Senior College program of nursing.

State Board Examination or Boards A national, objective

examination designed to assess competence on five subscales.

Extraversion or Introversion Preference This preference affects

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











the environment or the world of ideas.

Extraverts People who prefer the outer world of people and

things.

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

cepts.

Sensing or Intuition Preference This preference affects an

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

on.

Sensing The preference whereby one becomes aware of things

directly through the five senses and direct experience.

Intuition The preference which filters the perceived data

through the unconscious, where ideas, relationships, and associations

are added.

Thinking or Feeling Preference This preference affects an

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

Thinking A judging function, which is a logical process aimed

at an impersonal finding.

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

tion, bestowing on things a personal subjective value.

Judgment or Perception Preference This preference affects an

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

dealing with the environment.

Judgment The process of coming to a conclusion about what has

been perceived.

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

occurrences, or ideas.

Judging Attitude Attitude, using thinking or feeling, whereby











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

regulate life and control it.

Perceptive Attitude Attitude, using sensing or intuition,

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

to understand life and adapt to it.

Psychological Type, Personality Type, or Type Four letters which

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

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

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



Need for the Study


Efforts to find instruments predictive of performance on Boards

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

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

identifying learning styles and in prescribing suitable remedial activi-

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

nursing education and cannot be utilized for admission counseling or

for early diagnostic work.

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

gate the relationship of psychological type to performance on Boards.

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

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

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

value to nursing students and nursing educators.

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

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

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

















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE


Although the literature overlaps, two major areas of research

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

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

formance.



Jungian Concepts


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

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

ation in human behavior.

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

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

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

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

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

solid facts of experience.

The alternative method of becoming aware is through Intuition

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

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

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

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

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











logical consequences. Individuals who prefer this mode of judging and

who make decisions objectively and impersonally are said to be Thinking

types (T).

The alternative method of coming to conclusions is through Feel-

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

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

by weighing relative values.

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

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

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

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

Introversion (I).

The remaining preference is between perception and judgment as

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

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

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

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

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

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



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











The theory also assumes that one pole of each preference has

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

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

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

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

teen characteristic types are possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

formance on Boards is influenced by preferred modes of perceiving and

judging?



Relationship of Type to Scholastic Performance


Studies reported show type classifications to be related to two

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

tude, and (2) achievement.


Aptitude

Data collected by Holland and Nichols from a random sample of

100 male, National Merit Finalists showed a predominance of Introverted

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

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

less frequently in general population distributions. According to

Myers, the preponderance of Introverted and Intuitive types among the











the National Merit Finalists suggests that scholastic achievement as

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

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

engineering colleges showed scores for students having Introversion,

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

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

ences for the Thinking or Feeling preference were less consistent and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ducted by Grant (7).

Conary studied educational variables of 1708 Auburn University

freshmen using rank correlation techniques. Results showed mean scores

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

mean scores for Extraverted Sensing types on the American College Test

(6).

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

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

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

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

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

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











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

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

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

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

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

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

utilized.

Regression curves of the Concept Mastery scores for the Brown

freshmen upon Sensing and Intuition have been plotted separately for

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

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

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

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

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

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

with intricacies of language and thought (17).

The literature contains fewer references to the relationship be-

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

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

for 3503 male college preparatory students (17).


Achievement

Achievement is another criterion of scholastic success. Grade

point average of high school and college students provide evidence of

achievement.

Myers shows correlations of grade point average with type pref-

erence for seven male samples from liberal arts colleges, four











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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aptitude.) Correlations with the Judging attitude are significant at

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

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

tude, somewhat less consistent (17).

Studying first quarter grade point averages for college fresh-

men, McCaulley reports that Introverted Intuitive types ranked highest,

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

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

mean grade point averages higher than Extraverts, Intuitives Higher

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among the Auburn University freshmen studied by Conary, Intui-

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












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

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

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

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

intuitors achieve differently than Feeling sensors; however, since the

preferences for Thinking and Feeling were not studied separately from

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

what extent Thinking and Feeling influence grades.

Stricker and others investigated the ability of the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator to predict grades at Wesleyan and Caltech. Preferences

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

Wesleyan. Correlations were generally lower in the Caltech sample but

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

vestigators concluded that the Indicator had some ability to predict

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

p. 1094).



Summary


In summary the literature reviewed indicates that:

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

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

the world.

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

ition, and Perception.

3. Achievement is enhanced by a preference for Introversion,

Intuition, and Judgment.







14


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

icantly to scholastic performance.


















CHAPTER III

METHOD OF STUDY


This study was designed to explore the relationship between per-

formance on the MBTI and performance on Boards.

The overall hypothesis yielded the following null hypotheses to

be tested:

1. There is no significant relationship between perfor-

mance on the State Board Examination and psychological

type.

2. There is no significant relationship between perfor-

mance on the subscales of the State Board Examination


and psychological type.

3. There is no one type which performs

on the State Board Examination.

4. There is no one type which performs

on the subscales of the State Board

5. There is no one type which performs

on the State Board Examination.

6. There is no one type which performs

on the subscales of the State Board

7. Performance by type does not differ


consistently higher



consistently higher

Examination.

consistently lower



consistently lower

Examination.

between associate


degree and baccalaureate degree graduates.











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

istered to all participants while attending nursing school. The State

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

ticipants following graduation.



The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obtaining information, either through direct experience or through

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

erence for Extraversion or Introversion. While everyone uses all of











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

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

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

preferences.

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

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

cator, McCaulley stated:



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



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

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

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

ered representative of the respondent's preferred process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The manifestation of personality type is determined by the interaction

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

tion and judgment are summarized in Appendix A.

National norms for the Indicator have been developed by Myers

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


















I--J

I--P

E--P

E--J


ST SF NF NT




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ


FIGURE 1. PERSONALITY TYPE*


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


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

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

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

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

basis for decision-making.

Reliability of the Indicator has been determined by split-half

tetrachoric correlations and application of the Spearman-Brown Prophecy

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

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

these reliabilities comparable to those calculated from continuous

scores, and to other similar self-report instruments.

Myers (17) has provided considerable evidence for concurrent

validity of the Indicator by correlations with other instruments as











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

creativity. Also, evidence for construct validity was obtained from

correlations, corrected for differing reliabilities and attenuation,

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

naire which was also based on Jungian personality theory and developed

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

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

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



The State Board Examination


The State Board Examination for nursing graduates is a standard-

ized test which consists of five subtests to assess competence in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

use of the examination. Satisfactory performance indicates that a

practitioner meets legal requirements for safe practice. Unlike

achievement tests designed to measure maximum performance, Boards are

designed to test minimum competence.

Each subtest contains questions designed to test the cognitive

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

the subtests are used on a rotating basis.












Description of the Sample


Three hundred and twelve graduates from two schools were involved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


21 years
and older 8 57 16 10 53 5


Under 21 1 49 4 108 1


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











Only those graduates for whom both MBTI and Board scores were

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

graduates available in several of the type classifications, random

selection proved to be impossible.



Collection of Data


Psychological Type

The data on psychological type were obtained by using the

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

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

all participants upon request.

As a result of testing, participants were classified according

to four dichotomous dimensions: 1. Extraversion-Introversion,

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

Combining the four letters identifying participants' preferences

resulted in sixteen type classifications. The distribution of types

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

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

Appendix B.


State Board Scores

The State Board Examination, challenged after graduation, pro-

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

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

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

The five subscale scores were collected individually and combined to

determine a total Board score for each participant.











TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES BY SCHOOL


University
of Florida

Santa Fe





University
of Florida

Santa Fe





University
of Florida

Santa Fe





University
of Florida

Santa Fe


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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


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



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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


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



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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


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



ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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


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


Treatment of Data


Hypotheses numbers one and two were tested with analysis of

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

the relationship between performance on Boards and psychological type.











Hypotheses three through six were tested using the Scheffe

Method of multiple comparisons and the Median Test to determine which

psychological types perform differently on Boards.

Hypothesis number seven was also tested using analysis of vari-

ance techniques to determine whether the relationship between type and

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

reate degree graduates.

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

percent were used to check for confounding variables.


















CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA


The data consist of State Board Examination scores and MBTI

psychological type for 177 baccalaureate (University of Florida) and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

was recorded.

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

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

ject of this analysis to discover if these relationships were different

for baccalaureate graduates than for associate degree graduates.

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

following seven null hypotheses:

1. There is no significant relationship between performance

on the State Board Examination and psychological type.

2. There is no significant relationship between performance

on the subscales of the State Board Examination and

psychological type.











3. There is no one type which performs consistently

higher on the State Board Examination.

4. There is no one type which performs consistently

higher on the subscales of the State Board Examination.

5. There is no one type which performs consistently lower

on the State Board Examination.

6. There is no one type which performs consistently lower

on the subscales of the State Board Examination.

7. Performance by type does not differ between associate

degree and baccalaureate degree graduates.



Analysis of the Data


As a preliminary check for confounding variables, the University

of Florida population and the Santa Fe population were compared with

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

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

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

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

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

are summarized in Table 3.

Next the two populations were compared with respect to distribu-

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

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

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

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

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











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


Total Sample

% Male
% Female
% White
% Black


Mean
S.D.
Range


Santa Fe

135

6.7
93.3
85.2
14.8*


24.6*
6.93*
17-46


U. of F.

177

5.6
94.4
96.6
3.4


20.88
2.15
19-34


Significant at the .05 level.



University of Florida population. Generally, the distribution of

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

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

nificantly more ESFJ types in the Santa Fe population.

The two populations were also compared with respect to Board

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










Table 10 summarizes the mean scores for both schools.

The same Analysis of Variance was used to test for interaction

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

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

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

Consequently, the hypothesis that performance by type would not differ

between associate degree and baccalaureate degree graduates failed to

be rejected.



TABLE 4. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR MEDICAL SCORES


Source df SS MS F Value


Regression 31 474,470.65 15,305.50 1.63*

Error 280 2,626,087.65 9,378.88

Corrected Total 311 3,100,558.30


Sequential Partial
df SS F Value MS F Value


School 1 67,918.53 7.24 10,633.33 1.13

MBTI 15 261,014.03 1.86 290,839.34 2.07*

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


* Significant at .05 level.











TABLE 5. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR SURGICAL SCORES

Source df SS MS F Value

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


Sequential Partial
df SS F Value MS F Value

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






TABLE 6. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR PEDIATRIC SCORES

Source df SS MS F Value

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


Sequential Partial
df SS F Value MS F Value

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


* Significant at


.05 level.










TABLE 7. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR OBSTETRIC SCORES

Source df SS MS F Value


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


Sequential Partial
df SS F Value MS F Value

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



Significant at .05 level.





TABLE 8. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR PSYCHIATRIC SCORES

Source df SS MS F Value


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


Sequential Partial
df SS F Value MS F Value

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


* Significant at .05 level











TABLE 9. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TOTAL BOARD SCORES

Source df SS MS F Value

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


Sequential Partial
df SS F Value MS F Value


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


* Significant at .05 level.







TABLE 10. MEAN BOARD SCORES BY SCHOOL


Medical Surgical Pediatric Obstetric Psychiatric Total



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


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











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

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

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

hypothesis of no relationship between performance on Boards and psycho-

logical type.

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

tionship between performance on subscales and psychological type. Sig-

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

Pediatric scores, Obstetric scores, and Psychiatric scores. These

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

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

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

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

To determine which psychological types have different scores,

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

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

as for the total Board score. Included were:

1. All pair-wise comparisons generated by classifying

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

E vs I, S vs N, et cetera.

2. All pair-wise comparisons generated by classifying

subjects according to two MBTI preferences, e.g.

EN vs ES, IN vs EN, et cetera.

3. All pair-wise comparisons generated by classifying

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

ISTJ vs ESTJ, ENFP vs ESTJ, et cetera.











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

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

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

cant.

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

possible to identify types which perform consistently higher or lower

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

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

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

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

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

and differences between high and low types are not significant.

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

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

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

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

detect significant differences.

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

for all 16 types on Table 18.


Consideration of Race

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

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

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

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

years to use different admissions criteria for blacks. Analysis of

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

sampling bias.











TABLE 11. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN MEDICAL SCORES


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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

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

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



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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

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

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



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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

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

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



ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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

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

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











TABLE 12. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN SURGICAL SCORES


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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

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

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



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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

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

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



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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

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

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



ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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

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

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











TABLE 13. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN PEDIATRIC SCORES


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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

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

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



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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

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

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



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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

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

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



ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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

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

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











TABLE 14. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN OBSTETRIC SCORES


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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

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

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



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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

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

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



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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

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

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



ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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

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

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











TABLE 15. RANK ORDER OF TYPES BY MEAN PSYCHIATRIC SCORES


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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

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

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



ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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

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

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



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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

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

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



ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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

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

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











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


ISTJ

N Mean Rank

9 2740.4 4

9 2328.0 12


ISFJ

N Mean Rank

21 2479.6 14

18 2251.4 15


INFJ

N Mean Rank

13 2803.5 3

6 2714.8 3


INTJ

N Mean Rank

4 2885.0 1

2 3006.5 1


ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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

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

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



ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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

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

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


N

U of F 10

Santa Fe 10


ESTJ

Mean Rank

2502.9 13

2309.9 13


ESFJ

Mean Rank

2504.9 12

2360.1 9


ENFJ

Mean Rank

2620.7 9

2580.1 7


ENTJ


Mean Rank

2220.0 16

2923.0 2


U of F

Santa Fe


U of F

Santa Fe








U of F

Santa Fe











TABLE 17. THE MEDIAN


TEST COMPARING 16 MBTI TYPES ON STATE BOARD
EXAMINATION SCORES


Variable Chi Square df P



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






TABLE 18. MEDIAN BOARD SCORES BY TYPE


Type Medical Surgical Pediatric Obstetric Psychiatric Total


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











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

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

scale scores. Type was not significantly related to Surgical or

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

This analysis also supports rejection of the hypothesis that there is

no relationship between performance on Boards or on subscales of Boards

and psychological type.



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



Variable df F P


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


Analysis of whites only produced results resembling those of the

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

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

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

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


Consideration of Age

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

than University of Florida subjects. It was postulated that maturity











may influence performance on Boards. Therefore, all participants were

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

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

type.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

between any single or double pair of MBTI preferences. Interaction

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

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



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

Variable df F P



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











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

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

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

related to Pediatric score. No other subscale score was significant

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

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

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

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

interaction between school and type. Sources of variation for all

subjects 21 years and over are summarized in Table 21.



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

Variable df F P


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






Consideration of Age and Race

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

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

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

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











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

Psychiatric score, and total Board score were all significantly related

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

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

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

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

of variation for white subjects under 21 years are summarized in

Table 22.



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

Variable df F P


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


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

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

for this group are summarized in Table 23.

Subjects who passed Boards were compared by age and race with

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

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

determine pass-fail in this study.











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

Variable df F P


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





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

differences for both age groups. A disproportionate number of blacks

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

summarized in Table 24.



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


Population Chi Square df P



Age 21 and over 42.11 1 .0001


Age under 21 10.92 1 .0011






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

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

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

summarized in Table 25.











TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF TYPE BY PASS-FAIL


Population Chi Square df P


Whites

21 years and over 13.62 15 .5554

Under 21 years 12.73 14 .5480


All

21 years and over 19.78 15 .1801

Under 21 years 8.96 14 .8327


Interpretation of Data


Limitations of the Study

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

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

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

years to provide educational opportunities for minorities may have

introduced a selection bias.

The graduates could not be selected at random. Selecting from

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

inserted some degree of bias into the findings.

Participants were from two schools in the same geographical area.

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

a possible limitation.

Insufficient numbers of each type restricted analysis and inter-

pretation of the data.


















CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Summary


Purpose of Study

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

exists a relationship between Jungian psychological type and perfor-

mance on State Board Examinations for nursing.


Questions for Study

This study sought to find answers to the following questions:

1. Can psychological types be identified that perform

significantly different than other types on Boards?

2. Are there types that perform consistently well on

Boards or on sections of Boards?

3. Are there types that score consistently low on

Boards or on sections of Boards?

4. Is performance on Boards by type independent of

educational setting?


Design of the Study

This study was designed to explore the relationship between per-

formance on the MBTI and performance on Boards.











The Participants

Three hundred and twelve graduates from two schools were involved

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

Community College) graduates and 177 baccalaureate (University of

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

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

Six of the baccalaureate graduates were black females and 10 were

white males. The rest were white females.


Data on Psychological Type

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

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

classified according to four dichotomous dimensions: 1. Extraversion-

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

Perceiving. Combining the four letters identifying participants' pref-

erences resulted in sixteen type classifications.


Data on State Board Scores

The data from the State Board Examination consisted of scores on

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

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

subscale scores were collected individually and combined to determine

a total Board score for each participant.


Analysis and Interpretation of the Data

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

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

of this analysis to discover if these relationships were different for












baccalaureate graduates than for associate degree graduates.

More specifically the following seven null hypotheses were tested:

1. There is no significant relationship between perfor-

mance on State Board Examination and psychological

type.

2. There is no significant relationship between per-

formance on the subscales of State Board Examina-

tion and psychological type.

3. There is no one type which performs consistently

higher on the State Board Examination.

4. There is no one type which performs consistently

higher on the subscales of the State Board Exam-

ination.

5. There is no one type which performs consistently

lower on the State Board Examination.

6. There is no one type which performs consistently

lower on the subscales of the State Board Exam-

ination.

7. Performance by type does not differ between

Associate Degree and Baccalaureate Degree graduates.

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

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

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

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

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

respect to age than the University of Florida population.

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











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

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

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

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

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

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

with University of Florida graduates having the highest mean.

Analysis of Variance was used to test for interaction between

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

sequently, the hypothesis that performance by type would not differ

between associate degree and baccalaureate degree graduates was not

rejected.

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

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

sis of no relationship between performance on Board and psychological

type was rejected.

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

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

Therefore, the hypothesis of no relationship between performance on

subscales and psychological type could also be rejected.

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

tween performance on the Surgical subscale and type.

The Scheffe Method of multiple comparison was used to make all

pair-wise comparisons generated by classifying subjects according to

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

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

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











differences fell short of significance. Based on the Scheffe Method

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

to identify types which perform consistently higher or lower than

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

ses three through six were not rejected.

Analysis of Variance proceedings were done under several condi-

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

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

supported rejection of the hypothesis that there is no relationship

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

logical type. University of Florida subjects under 21 years old

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

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

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

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

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

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



Conclusions


The results of the study warrant the following conclusions:

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

2. This relationship exists for Medical, Pediatric,

Obstetric, Psychiatric, and total Board score.

3. It is not possible to differentiate which types are

likely to score high and which types are likely to

score low with the small sample sizes used in this

study.











4. Scores differ by school on the Psychiatric subscale.

University of Florida graduates have higher scores

than Santa Fe graduates.

5. There is no evidence of interaction between type and

school. Performance by type does not differ between

the associate degree and baccalaureate degree graduates.

6. There are fewer significant differences on Board scores

when the Analysis is restricted to whites only.

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

than whites.

8. Younger (under 21) University of Florida graduates

score higher on all subscales and on total Boards than

younger Santa Fe graduates.

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

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



Discussion


Analysis of Variance showed a relationship between performance

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

scales and type. There was no relationship between Surgical scores

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

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

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

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

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

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

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











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

Individual differences between types are probably slight and fall short

of significance even though the aggregate of differences can be shown

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

tions or single and double type preferences resulted in small sample

sizes and restricted statistical treatment.

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

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

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

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

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

Scores differ by school on the Psychiatric subscale. This result

probably reflects a difference in the instructional programs of the

two schools.

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

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

degree and baccalaureate degree graduates. This might be explained by

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

external conditions. Another possible explanation is that neither

school uses type to identify learning styles and to plan programs

accordingly.

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

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

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

provide educational opportunities for minorities may have caused educa-

tionally disadvantaged blacks to be included with better prepared whites.

There are fewer significant differences on Board scores when the











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

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

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

the aggregate may well be the S-J factor.

Younger (under 21) University of Florida graduates score higher

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

This may suggest that younger students with an additional two years

academic experience have an advantage on Boards.

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

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

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

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

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

effect.



Recommendations


Research

Further study and research should be undertaken.

1. By increasing sample size and representativeness as

to type, it would be possible to identify types

scoring high and types scoring low on Boards and on

subscales of Boards.

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

effects of type on Board scores wfihin black groups

and between black and white groups.











3. A study comparing types of blacks who passed Boards

with types of blacks who failed Boards before deseg-

regation would be useful.

4. More specific study of the Surgical scores is needed

to identify why type performance differs here and

not in the other areas.

5. Graduates from a wide geographical area should be

studied to eliminate regional influences.


Education

1. If it is desirable to improve the performance of

selected types, the learning styles of those types

should be identified and reinforced.

2. Investigation is needed to discover which types

among blacks fail Boards most often.

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

for the younger group (under 21) then learning

programs should be developed differently for the

younger and for the older age groups to facilitate

learning for both groups.

4. If it is desirable to differentiate baccalaureate

performance from associate degree performance,

both Psychiatric instructional programs should be

evaluated.

































APPENDIX A

CHARACTERISTICS OF MYERS-BRIGGS TYPES











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


ISTJ

Serious, quiet, earns his success

by earnest concentration and un-

hurried thoroughness. Logical and

orderly in his work and dependable

in all he does. Sees to it that

everything he touches is well

organized. Takes responsibility

of his own accord. Makes up his

own mind as to what should be

accomplished and works toward it

steadily, regardless of protests

or distractions.


ISTP

Quiet, reserved, a sort of cool

onlooker at life, observing

and analyzing it with detached

curiosity and unexpected flashes

of original humor. Interested

mainly in mechanics, in cars, in

sports and in business. Exerts

himself only as much as he

considers actually necessary,

even if he happens to be a star

athlete.


ISFJ

Quiet, friendly, responsible and

conscientious. Works devotedly

to meet his obligations and serve

his friends and school. Thorough

and painstaking, accurate with

figures, but needs time to master

technical subjects, as reasoning

is not his strong point. Patient

with detail and routine. Loyal,

considerate, concerned with how

other people feel even when they

are in the wrong.


ISFP

Retiring, quietly friendly,

sensitive, hates argument of

any kind, is always too modest

about his abilities. Has no

wish to be a leader, but is a

loyal, willing follower. Puts

things off to the last minute

and beyond. Never really drives

himself about anything, because

he enjoys the present moment and

does not want it spoiled.











ESTP

Matter-of-fact, doesn't worry or

hurry, always has a good time.

Likes mechanical things, cars and

sports, with friends on the side.

A little blunt and insensitive.

Can take school or leave it.

Won't bother to follow a wordy

explanation, but comes alive when

there is something real to be

worked, handled or taken apart.

Can do math and technical stuff

when he sees he will need it.



ESTJ

Practical, realistic, matter-

of-fact, with a natural head for

business. Likes the mechanics

of things. Not interested in

subjects that he sees no actual

use for, but can apply himself

when necessary. Is good at

organizing and running school

activities, but sometimes rubs

people the wrong way by ignoring

their feelings and viewpoints.


ESFP

Outgoing, easy-going, uncritical,

friendly, very fond of a good time.

Enjoys sports and making things,

restless if he has to sit still.

Knows what's happening and joins

in helpfully. Literal-minded,

tries to remember rather than to

reason, is easily confused by

theory. Has good common sense

and practical ability, but is not

at all interested in study for

its own sake.




ESFJ

Warm-hearted, talkative, popular,

conscientious, interested in every-

one, a born cooperator and active

committee member. Has no capacity

for analysis or abstract thinking,

and so has trouble with technical

subjects, but works hard to master

the facts in a lesson and win ap-

proval. Works best with plenty of

praise and encouragement. Always

doing something nice for someone

in a practical way.











INFJ

Gifted and original student who

succeeds through combination of

intelligence, perseverance, and

desire to please. Puts his best

efforts into his work because he

wouldn't think of doing less than

his best. Quiet, conscientious,

considerate of others, widely re-

spected if not popular, but suf-

fers socially from unwillingness

to compromise where a principle

or conviction is involved.


INFP


Particularly enthusiastic about

books, reads or tells the parts

he likes best to his friends. In-

terested and responsive in class,

always attentive and quick to see

what the teacher is leading up to.

Has a warm, friendly personality

but is not sociable just for the

sake of sociability and seldom

puts his mind on his possessions

or physical surroundings.


INTJ

Has a very original mind and a

great amount of drive which he

uses only when it pleases him.

In fields which appeal to his

imagination he has a fine power

to organize a job or piece of

work and carry it through with or

without the help of others. He

is always sceptical, critical

and independent, generally

determined, and often stubborn.

Can never be driven, seldom led.


INTP


Quiet, reserved, brilliant in

exams, especially in theoretical

or scientific subjects. Logical

to the point of hair-splitting.

Has no capacity for small talk

and is uncomfortable at parties.

Primarily interested in his

studies and wouldn't care to be

president of his class. Liked by

his teachers for his scholarship

and by the few fellow-students

who get to know him for himself.











ENFP

Warmly enthusiastic, high-spirited,

ingenious, imaginative, can do al-

most anything that interests him.

Quick with a solution for any diffi-

culty and very ready to help people

with a problem on their hands. Of-

ten relies on his spur-of-the-moment

ability to improvise instead of pre-

paring his work in advance. Can

usually talk his way out of any jam

with charm and ease.



ENFJ

Responsive and responsible. Feels a

real concern for what others think

and want, and tries always to handle

things with due regard for the other

fellow's feelings and desires. Can

lead a group discussion or present a

proposal with ease and tact. Socia-

ble, popular, active in school af-

fairs, but puts time enough on his

lessons to do good work.


ENTP

Quick, ingenious, gifted in many

lines, lively and stimulating com-

pany, alert and outspoken, argues

for fun on either side of any ques-

tion. Resourceful in solving new

and challenging problems, but tends

to neglect routine assignments as

a boring waste of time. Turns to

one new interest after another.

Can always find excellent reasons

for whatever he wants.



ENTJ

Hearty, frank, able in studies and

a leader in activities. Particu-

larly good in anything requiring

reasoning and intelligent talk,

like debating or public speaking.

Well-informed and keeps adding to

his fund of knowledge. *May be a

bit too positive in matters where

his experience has not yet caught

up with his self-confidence.


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












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


People who
prefer


focus their
attention on


and handle
these with


Thus they
tend to be


and find
scope for
their
abilities
in


SENSING
+ THINKING


Facts


Impersonal
analysis


Practical
and matter-
of-fact


Production
Construc-
tion
Accounting
Business
Economics
Law
Surgery
Etc.


SENSING
+ FEELING


Facts


Personal
warmth


Sociable
and
friendly


Sales
Service
Customer
relations
Welfare
work
Nursing
General
practice
Etc.


INTUITION
+ FEELING


Possibili-
ties


Personal
warmth


Enthusi-
astic and
insightful


Research
Teaching
Preaching
Counseling
Writing
Psychology
Psychiatry
Etc.


INTUITION
+ THINKING


Possibili-
ties


Impersonal
analysis


Logical and
ingenious


Research
Science
Invention
Securities
analysis
Management
Pathology
Etc.


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

































APPENDIX B

DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES










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




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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




ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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


One ENFP male was less than 21 years old.











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




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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





ISTP ISFP INFP TNT'

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





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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











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




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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











TABLE 31.


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


ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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











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



ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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










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




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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











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




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTP

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











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




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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











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




ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

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





ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

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





ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

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





ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

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


One ISTJ female was less than 21 years old.

































APPENDIX C

BOARD SCORES COMPARED ACCORDING TO El AND SN PREFERENCES











TABLE 37. COMPARISON OF


IS
Score
(n=83)


TOTAL AND SUBSCALE MEANS BY MBTI QUADRANTS


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


Medical


Surgical


Pediatric


Obstetric


Psychiatric


Total


471.01


485.57


492.93


496.31


497.42


2443.24


511.43


511.61


542.94


534.37


566.22


2652.88


462.77


475.79


484.93


480.74


481.50


2385.73


512.22


500.19


539.33


531.49


549.78


2633.01
















0 0o C> o Cl)

LI )\ LI Cr o- o


I+ +1 + +I +1 +I

















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



N 0\ N+ N+









II U') C C H



H *I,
0; C0 CX r.


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


:LI I 0 co


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


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

m 00 CM o



P4 C3 c) 0' C03









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


o3 C H0 -a H '0-









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


-. 03 (N (N r( c)










:3 0 N- '. 03
H










H H H H


































BIBLIOGRAPHY


















BIBLIOGRAPHY


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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











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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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











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

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

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

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

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


















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


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

of Science in Nursing degree from Michigan State University and worked

as a staff nurse in pediatrics.

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

as an instructor and later as an assistant professor of pediatric

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

the University of Florida.

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

ciate at the University of Florida, College of Nursing.











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





James'W. Hensel, Chairman
Professor of Education



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





Arthur J. Lewis'
Professor of Edcation



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





Dorris B. Payne
Assistant Professor of Nursing



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


June, 1975



Dean, College of Education


Dean, Graduate School













































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




Full Text
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 EGVAVRFXZ_8XMTT9 INGEST_TIME 2017-07-13T15:04:21Z PACKAGE AA00003533_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

$1 $1$/<6,6 2) 1856,1* 67$7( %2$5' 6&25(6 $&&25',1* 72 0<(56%5,**6 3(5621$/,7< 7<3(6 %\ '$9,' :,//,$06 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( &281&,/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

7R 0DU\ ZKR ILUVW VSDUNHG P\ LQWHUHVW LQ UHVHDUFK DQG 'RUULV ZKR EHOLHYHG FRXOG GR LW

PAGE 3

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

PAGE 4

7$%/( 2) &217(176 3DJH $&.12:/('*0(176 LLL /,67 2) 7$%/(6 YL $%675$&7 YLLL &+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 72 7+( 678'< 3XUSRVH RI WKH 6WXG\ 4XHVWLRQV IRU 6WXG\ 'HOLPLWDWLRQV RI WKH 6WXG\ 'HILQLWLRQ RI 7HUPV 1HHG IRU WKH 6WXG\ &+$37(5 ,, 5(9,(: 2) 5(/$7(' /,7(5$785( -XQJLDQ &RQFHSWV 5HODWLRQVKLS RI 7\SH WR 6FKRODVWLF 3HUIRUPDQFH 6XPPDU\ &+$37(5 ,,, 0(7+2' 2) 678'< 7KH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU 7KH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ 'HVFULSWLRQ RI WKH 6DPSOH &ROOHFWLRQ RI 'DWD 7UHDWPHQW RI 'DWD

PAGE 5

3DJH &+$37(5 ,9 $1$/<6,6 $1' ,17(535(7$7,21 2) '$7$ $QDO\VLV RI WKH 'DWD ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI 'DWD &+$37(5 9 6800$5< &21&/86,216 $1' 5(&200(1'$7,216 6XPPDU\ &RQFOXVLRQV 'LVFXVVLRQ 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV $33(1',; $ &+$5$&7(5,67,&6 2) 0<(56%5,**6 7<3(6 $33(1',; % ',675,%87,21 2) 7<3(6 $33(1',; & %2$5' 6&25(6 &203$5(' $&&25',1* 72 (O $1' 61 35()(5(1&(6 %,%/,2*5$3+< %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ Y

PAGE 6

/,67 2) 7$%/(6 7DEOH 3DJH ',675,%87,21 2) *5$'8$7(6 %< 6&+22/ 6(; $*( $1' 5$&( ',675,%87,21 2) 7<3(6 %< 6&+22/ &203$5,621 2) 3238/$7,216 $&&25',1* 72 6(; 5$&( $1' $*( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 7$%/( )25 0(',&$/ 6&25(6 $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 7$%/( )25 685*,&$/ 6&25(6 $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 7$%/( )25 3(',$75,& 6&25(6 $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 7$%/( )25 2%67(75,& 6&25(6 $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 7$%/( )25 36<&+,$75,& 6&25(6 $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 7$%/( )25 727$/ %2$5' 6&25(6 0($1 %2$5' 6&25(6 %< 6&+22/ 5$1. 25'(5 2) 7<3(6 %< 0($1 0(',&$/ 6&25(6 5$1. 25'(5 2) 7<3(6 %< 0($1 685*,&$/ 6&25(6 5$1. 25'(5 2) 7<3(6 %< 0($1 3(',$75,& 6&25(6 5$1. 25'(5 2) 7<3(6 %< 0($1 2%67(75,& 6&25(6 5$1. 25'(5 2) 7<3(6 %< 0($1 36<&+,$75,& 6&25(6 5$1. 25'(5 2) 7<3(6 %< 0($1 6&25( 21 727$/ 67$7( %2$5' (;$0,1$7,21 7+( 0(',$1 7(67 &203$5,1* 0%7, 7<3(6 21 67$7( %2$5' (;$0,1$7,21 6&25(6 0(',$1 %2$5' 6&25(6 %< 7<3( ())(&7 2) 7<3( 21 67$7( %2$5' 6&25(6 :+,7(6 21/< ())(&7 2) 7<3( 21 67$7( %2$5' 6&25(6 $// 68%-(&76 81'(5 YL

PAGE 7

7DEOH 3DJH ())(&7 2) 7<3( 21 67$7( %2$5' 6&25(6 $// 68%-(&76 $1' 29(5 ())(&7 2) 7<3( 21 67$7( %2$5' 6&25(6 :+,7( 68%-(&76 81'(5 ())(&7 2) 7<3( 21 67$7( %2$5' 6&25(6 :+,7( 68%-(&76 <($56 $1' 29(5 %/$&.6 &203$5(' 72 :+,7(6 21 3$66)$,/ %< $*( &203$5,621 2) 7<3( %< 3$66)$,/ &+$5$&7(5,67,&6 2) 0<(56%5,**6 3(5621$/,7< 7<3(6 ,1 +,*+ 6&+22/ ())(&76 2) 7+( &20%,1$7,216 2) 3(5&(37,21 $1' -8'*0(17 ,1 0<(56%5,**6 3(5621$/,7< 7<3(6 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 6$17$ )( :+,7( 0$/(6 <($56 $1' 2/'(5 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) :+,7( 6$17$ )( )(0$/(6 <($56 $1' 2/'(5 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) :+,7( 6$17$ )( )(0$/(6 /(66 7+$1 <($56 2/' 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 6$17$ )( %/$&. )(0$/(6 <($56 $1' 2/'(5 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 6$17$ )( %/$&. )(0$/(6 /(66 7+$1 <($56 2/' 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ :+,7( 0$/(6 <($56 $1' 2/'(5 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ :+,7( )(0$/(6 <($56 $1' 2/'(5 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ :+,7( )(0$/(6 /(66 7+$1 <($56 2/' 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ %/$&. )(0$/(6 29(5 <($56 2/' &203$5,621 2) 727$/ $1' 68%6&$/( 0($16 %< 0%7, 48$'5$176 1,1(7<),9( 3(5&(17 &21),'(1&( ,17(59$/6 )25 ',))(5(1&(6 ,1 0($16 ‘LL

PAGE 8

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f DQG SHUn IRUPDQFH RQ 1XUVLQJ 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQV 7KH VDPSOH FRQVLVWHG RI VWXGHQWV DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH JUDGXn DWHV DQG EDFFDODXUHDWH JUDGXDWHV $V D UHVXOW RI 0%7, WHVWLQJ DOO SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH FODVVLILHG DFFRUGLQJ WR IRXU GLFKRWRPRXV GLPHQVLRQV ([WUDYHUVLRQ,QWURYHUVLRQ 6HQVLQJ,QWXLWLRQ 7KLQNLQJ)HHOLQJ DQG -XGJLQJ3HUFHLYLQJ 6L[WHHQ W\SH FODVVLILFDWLRQV ZHUH SRVVLEOH 6HSDUDWH 6WDWH %RDUG VFRUHV ZHUH DYDLODEOH IRU HDFK RI ILYH VXE VFDOHV 0HGLFDO 1XUVLQJ 6XUJLFDO 1XUVLQJ 3HGLDWULF 1XUVLQJ 2EVWHWULF 1XUVLQJ DQG 3V\FKLDWULF 1XUVLSJ 8VLQJ WKH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH ERWK WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV RI QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WRWDO %RDUGV DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH DQG WKH QXOO YL LL

PAGE 9

K\SRWKHVLV RI QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUG VXEVFDOHV DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH ZHUH UHMHFWHG DW WKH OHYHO +RZHYHU WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV WKDW SHUIRUPDQFH E\ W\SH ZRXOG QRW GLIIHU EHWZHHQ DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH DQG EDFFDODXUHDWH JUDGXDWHV FRXOG QRW EH UHMHFWHG DW WKH OHYHO 7KH 6FKHIIHn 0HWKRG RI PXOWLSOH FRPSDULVRQ DQG WKH 0HGLDQ 7HVW ZHUH XVHG WR PDNH DOO SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV JHQHUDWHG E\ FODVVLI\LQJ VXEMHFWV DFFRUGLQJ WR RQH WZR DQG IRXU 0%7, SUHIHUHQFHV $OO SDLUZLVH FRPn SDULVRQV IHOO VKRUW RI VLJQLILFDQFH DW WKH OHYHO 7KHUH ZDV QR RQH W\SH ZKLFK SHUIRUPHG FRQVLVWHQWO\ KLJKHU RU FRQVLVWHQWO\ ORZHU RQ HLWKHU WKH WRWDO RU RQ WKH VXEVFDOHV &KDLUPDQ /;

PAGE 10

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 72 7+( 678'< 2QH RI WKH PDQ\ SUREOHPV FRQWLQXDOO\ FRQIURQWLQJ QXUVLQJ HGXn FDWRUV LV WKH SUHGLFWLRQ RI VWXGHQW VXFFHVV RQ 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQV %RDUGVf (DFK \HDU D QXPEHU RI JUDGXDWHV FKDOOHQJH WKH %RDUGV XQVXFn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n DWLRQ LV QHHGHG $QG RI FRXUVH IURP WKH VWXGHQWnV SRLQW RI YLHZ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV LV DOVR D FRQFHUQ ,I VXFFHVV RQ %RDUGV FRXOG EH SUHGLFWHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI FHUWDLQ YDULDEOHV RU IDFWRUV VWXGHQWV ZLWK OLPLWHG SRWHQWLDO IRU VDWLVIDFWRU\ SHUIRUPDQFH FRXOG EH LGHQWLILHG HDUO\ IRU VSHFLDO DVVLVWDQFH RU FRXQVHOHG LQWR SURJUDPV IRU ZKLFK WKH\ DUH EHWWHU VXLWHG 7ZR W\SHV RI SURJUDPV DUH DYDLODEOH WR VWXGHQWV ZKR ZLVK WR EH QXUVHV $VVRFLDWH GHJUHH SURJUDPV WHQG WR EH SUDFWLFH RULHQWHG

PAGE 11

ZKLOH EDFFDODXUHDWH GHJUHH SURJUDPV WHQG WR EH WKHRU\ RULHQWHG 7KHUH KDYH EHHQ HIIRUWV WR SUHGLFW SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV 7KH 1DWLRQDO /HDJXH IRU 1XUVLQJ KDV IRXQG VFRUHV RQ WKH 3UH1XUVLQJ *XLGn DQFH ([DPLQDWLRQ 31*f WR FRUUHODWH SRVLWLYHO\ ZLWK VFRUHV RQ %RDUGV KRZHYHU WKH 31* GRHV QRW UHYHDO FOXHV DV WR VXLWDEOH UHPHGLDO DFWLYLn WLHV f 7KH 1DWLRQDO /HDJXH IRU 1XUVLQJ $FKLHYHPHQW 7HVW VFRUHV KDYH DOVR EHHQ IRXQG WR EH SUHGLFWLYH RI VXFFHVV RQ %RDUGV f 7KH 1/1 $FKLHYHPHQW EDWWHU\ UHTXLUHV DFDGHPLF H[SHULHQFH LQ QXUVLQJ WKHUHIRUH LW FDQ EH XVHG QHLWKHU IRU DGPLVVLRQ VFUHHQLQJ QRU IRU SUHn VFULELQJ LQGLYLGXDO OHDUQLQJ H[SHULHQFHV 2WKHUV KDYH IRXQG YHUEDO SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH 6FKRODVWLF $SWLWXGH 7HVW 6$79f WR EH D IUHTXHQW VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRU RI SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV f :KLOH 6$79 VFRUHV DUH RIWHQ XVHG DV DGPLVVLRQ FULn WHULD LW WHOOV QRWKLQJ DERXW LQGLYLGXDO OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV QRU LV LW SUHVFULSWLYH RI OHDUQLQJ DFWLYLWLHV WR DVVLVW ERUGHUOLQH VWXGHQWV %DFNPDQ DQG RWKHUV LQ DGGLWLRQ WR ILQGLQJ 6$79 VFRUHV KHOSIXO IRXQG D VLJQLILFDQW SRVLWLYH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ :HFKVOHU $GXOW ,QWHOn OLJHQFH 6FDOH :$,6f DQG %RDUG VFRUHV f $JDLQ :$,6 SURYLGHV QR FOXHV DV WR OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV $ UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYHDOV RQO\ RQH VWXG\ LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV DQG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV :KLOH WKLV VWXG\ GLG ILQG ,4 WR EH UHODWHG SRVLWLYHO\ WR %RDUG SHUn IRUPDQFH LQYHVWLJDWRUV FRQFOXGHG WKDW VXFFHVV RU IDLOXUH RQ %RDUGV LV LQGHSHQGHQW RI WKH W\SHV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV WKH 0LQQHVRWD 0XOWLSKDVLF 3HUVRQDOLW\ ,QYHQWRU\ 003,f PHDVXUHV HJ K\SRFKRQGULDVLV GHSUHVn VLRQ K\VWHULD HWFHWHUD f ,V LW SRVVLEOH WKDW SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV LV UHODWHG WR KRZ RQH

PAGE 12

XVHV WKH PLQG UDWKHU WKDQ LQGLFHV RI SDWKRORJLFDO SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV" -XQJLDQ SHUVRQDOLW\ YDULDEOHV DV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU 0%7,f DQG ZKLFK H[SODLQ KRZ RQH XVHV WKH PLQG KDYH EHHQ VKRZQ WR EH UHODWHG WR DFDGHPLF VXFFHVV f %XW GR VRPH W\SHV GR EHWWHU LQ RQH DFDGHPLF VHWWLQJ WKDQ DQRWKHU" 7KH YDULDEOHV LGHQWLILHG E\ WKH 0%7, KDYH DOVR EHHQ XVHG VXFFHVVn IXOO\ WR LGHQWLI\ OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV DQG WR SUHVFULEH LQGLYLGXDO OHDUQLQJ H[SHULHQFHV f ,I UHVXOWV RQ WKH 0%7, FDQ EH VKRZQ WR EH SUHGLFWLYH RI SHUn IRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV DQG LI WKH SUHGLFWLYH IDFWRUV GLIIHU DFFRUGLQJ WR HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDP WKHQ 0%7, UHVXOWV FRXOG EH XVHG DV D WRRO WR LGHQWLI\ VWXGHQWV QHHGLQJ VSHFLDO DVVLVWDQFH DV D EDVLV IRU SUHVFULELQJ HGXFDWLRQDO H[SHULHQFHV DQG DV D EDVLV IRU FRXQVHOLQJ VWXGHQWV LQWR WKH DSSURSULDWH HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDP 3XUSRVH RI WKH 6WXG\ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR WHVW WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WKHUH H[LVWV D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ -XQJLDQ SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH DQG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQV IRU QXUVLQJ ,W ZDV DOVR WKH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ WR GHWHUPLQH WKH YDOXH RI WKH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU LQ SUHGLFWLQJ %RDUG SHUIRUPDQFH E\ W\SH RI SURJUDP 4XHVWLRQV IRU 6WXG\ 7KLV VWXG\ VRXJKW WR ILQG DQVZHUV WR WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV

PAGE 13

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nV FKRLFH ZKHWKHU WR GLUHFW SHUFHSWLRQ DQG MXGJPHQW XSRQ

PAGE 14

WKH HQYLURQPHQW RU WKH ZRUOG RI LGHDV ‘ ([WUDYHUWV 3HRSOH ZKR SUHIHU WKH RXWHU ZRUOG RI SHRSOH DQG WKLQJV ,QWURYHUWV 3HRSOH ZKR SUHIHU WKH LQQHU ZRUOG RI LGHDV DQG FRQn FHSWV 6HQVLQJ RU ,QWXLWLRQ 3UHIHUHQFH 7KLV SUHIHUHQFH DIIHFWV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV FKRLFH RI ZKLFK RI WKHVH WZR NLQGV RI SHUFHSWLRQ WR UHO\ RQ 6HQVLQJ 7KH SUHIHUHQFH ZKHUHE\ RQH EHFRPHV DZDUH RI WKLQJV GLUHFWO\ WKURXJK WKH ILYH VHQVHV DQG GLUHFW H[SHULHQFH ,QWXLWLRQ 7KH SUHIHUHQFH ZKLFK ILOWHUV WKH SHUFHLYHG GDWD WKURXJK WKH XQFRQVFLRXV ZKHUH LGHDV UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG DVVRFLDWLRQV DUH DGGHG 7KLQNLQJ RU )HHOLQJ 3UHIHUHQFH 7KLV SUHIHUHQFH DIIHFWV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV FKRLFH RI ZKLFK RI WKHVH WZR NLQGV RI MXGJPHQW WR UHO\ RQ 7KLQNLQJ $ MXGJLQJ IXQFWLRQ ZKLFK LV D ORJLFDO SURFHVV DLPHG DW DQ LPSHUVRQDO ILQGLQJ )HHOLQJ $ MXGJLQJ IXQFWLRQ ZKLFK LV D SURFHVV RI DSSUHFLDn WLRQ EHVWRZLQJ RQ WKLQJV D SHUVRQDO VXEMHFWLYH YDOXH -XGJPHQW RU 3HUFHSWLRQ 3UHIHUHQFH 7KLV SUHIHUHQFH DIIHFWV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV FKRLFH ZKHWKHU WR XVH D MXGJLQJ RU SHUFHSWLYH DWWLWXGH LQ GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKH HQYLURQPHQW -XGJPHQW 7KH SURFHVV RI FRPLQJ WR D FRQFOXVLRQ DERXW ZKDW KDV EHHQ SHUFHLYHG 3HUFHSWLRQ 7KH SURFHVV RI EHFRPLQJ DZDUHf§RI WKLQJV SHRSOH RFFXUUHQFHV RU LGHDV -XGJLQJ $WWLWXGH $WWLWXGH XVLQJ WKLQNLQJ RU IHHOLQJ ZKHUHE\

PAGE 15

DQ LQGLYLGXDO ZLOO OLYH LQ D SODQQHG GHFLGHG RUGHUO\ ZD\ DLPLQJ WR UHJXODWH OLIH DQG FRQWURO LW 3HUFHSWLYH $WWLWXGH $WWLWXGH XVLQJ VHQVLQJ RU LQWXLWLRQ ZKHUHE\ DQ LQGLYLGXDO ZLOO OLYH LQ D IOH[LEOH VSRQWDQHRXV ZD\ DLPLQJ WR XQGHUVWDQG OLIH DQG DGDSW WR LW 3V\FKRORJLFDO 7\SH 3HUVRQDOLW\ 7\SH RU 7\SH )RXU OHWWHUV ZKLFK UHSUHVHQW WKH SURGXFW RI D SHUVRQnV FRQVFLRXV RULHQWDWLRQ WR OLIH KLV KDELWXDO SXUSRVHIXO ZD\V RI XVLQJ KLV PLQG FKRVHQ EHFDXVH LW VHHPV WR KLP WR EH JRRG LQWHUHVWLQJ DQG WUXVWZRUWK\ S f 1HHG IRU WKH 6WXG\ (IIRUWV WR ILQG LQVWUXPHQWV SUHGLFWLYH RI SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV KDYH WHQGHG WR IRFXV RQ DSWLWXGH DQG DFKLHYHPHQW WHVWV :KLOH WKHVH WHVWV KDYH GHPRQVWUDWHG SUHGLFWLYH YDOXH WKH\ DUH RI OLPLWHG YDOXH LQ LGHQWLI\LQJ OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV DQG LQ SUHVFULELQJ VXLWDEOH UHPHGLDO DFWLYLn WLHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ VHYHUDO LQVWUXPHQWV UHO\ RQ VRPH H[SHULHQFH LQ QXUVLQJ HGXFDWLRQ DQG FDQQRW EH XWLOL]HG IRU DGPLVVLRQ FRXQVHOLQJ RU IRU HDUO\ GLDJQRVWLF ZRUN $W WKH VDPH WLPH WKHUH KDV EHHQ D SDXFLW\ RI HIIRUW WR LQYHVWLn JDWH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH WR SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV 7\SH FDQ EH DVFHUWDLQHG SULRU WR DGPLVVLRQ FDQ EH XVHG WR LGHQWLI\ OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV DQG FDQ EH XVHG WR SUHVFULEH VXLWDEOH OHDUQLQJ DFWLYLn WLHV $Q LQVWUXPHQW WKDW LV ERWK SUHGLFWLYH DQG GLDJQRVWLF ZRXOG EH RI YDOXH WR QXUVLQJ VWXGHQWV DQG QXUVLQJ HGXFDWRUV 7KHUH LV DOVR D QHHG WR NQRZ ZKHWKHU RU QRW VWXGHQWV SHUIRUP GLIn IHUHQWO\ E\ W\SH GHSHQGLQJ XSRQ WKHLU HGXFDWLRQDO SURJUDP ,I VR VWXn GHQWV FRXOG EH FRXQVHOHG LQWR SURJUDPV PRVW EHQHILFLDO IRU WKHLU W\SH

PAGE 16

&+$37(5 ,, 5(9,(: 2) 5(/$7(' /,7(5$785( $OWKRXJK WKH OLWHUDWXUH RYHUODSV WZR PDMRU DUHDV RI UHVHDUFK FDQ EH LGHQWLILHG f -XQJnV WKHRU\ RI SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH DQG f UHVHDUFK H[SORULQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI W\SH WR VFKRODVWLF SHUn IRUPDQFH -XQJLDQ &RQFHSWV $FFRUGLQJ WR -XQJnV WKHRU\ f WKH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH ZD\ SHRSOH SUHIHU WR XVH SHUFHSWLRQ DQG MXGJPHQW FDXVHV PXFK YDULn DWLRQ LQ KXPDQ EHKDYLRU %DVLFDOO\ WKHUH DUH WZR ZD\V LQ ZKLFK SHRSOH SHUFHLYH RU EHn FRPH DZDUH RI REMHFWV SHRSOH HYHQWV DQG LGHDV 2QH ZD\ LV E\ XVLQJ WKH ILYH VHQVHV ,QGLYLGXDOV ZKR SUHIHU WR XVH WKHLU ILYH VHQVHV IRU SHUFHSWLRQ DUH VDLG WR EH 6HQVLQJ W\SHV 6f DQG WKHLU SUHIHUUHG PRGH RI SHUFHSWLRQ RULHQWV WKHP WRZDUG WKH LPPHGLDWH WKH UHDO WDQJLEOH VROLG IDFWV RI H[SHULHQFH 7KH DOWHUQDWLYH PHWKRG RI EHFRPLQJ DZDUH LV WKURXJK ,QWXLWLRQ 1f ,I RQH SUHIHUV LQWXLWLRQ DV WKH PDMRU PHDQV RI SHUFHSWLRQ RQH WHQGV WR IRFXV RQ SRVVLELOLWLHV PHDQLQJV DQG UHODWLRQVKLSV RI IDFWV DQG H[SHULHQFH XVXDOO\ ZLWK OLWWOH LQWHUHVW LQ WKH IDFWV WKHPVHOYHV 7KHUH DUH DOVR WZR ZD\V LQ ZKLFK SHRSOH MXGJH RU FRPH WR FRQFOXn VLRQV DERXW ZKDW WKH\ SHUFHLYH 2QH ZD\ LV WR DQDO\]H DQG HYDOXDWH WKH

PAGE 17

ORJLFDO FRQVHTXHQFHV ,QGLYLGXDOV ZKR SUHIHU WKLV PRGH RI MXGJLQJ DQG ZKR PDNH GHFLVLRQV REMHFWLYHO\ DQG LPSHUVRQDOO\ DUH VDLG WR EH 7KLQNLQJ W\SHV 7f 7KH DOWHUQDWLYH PHWKRG RI FRPLQJ WR FRQFOXVLRQV LV WKURXJK )HHOn LQJ )f )HHOLQJ W\SHV WHQG WR SUHIHU PDNLQJ GHFLVLRQV E\ HYDOXDWLQJ WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI DOWHUQDWLYHV WR RQHVHOI RU RWKHUV DQG PDNLQJ GHFLVLRQV E\ ZHLJKLQJ UHODWLYH YDOXHV 7KHUH DUH WZR ULYDO ILHOGV IRU WKH XVH RI RQHnV SHUFHSWLRQ DQG MXGJPHQW $ W\SLFDO GLUHFWLRQ RI DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH RXWHU ZRUOG RI REn MHFWV SHRSOH DQG DFWLRQ LV D SUHIHUHQFH IRU ([WUDYHUVLQ (f $ SXOO WR WKH LQQHU ZRUOG RI LGHDV DQG FRQWHPSODWLRQ LV D SUHIHUHQFH IRU ,QWURYHUVLRQ ,f 7KH UHPDLQLQJ SUHIHUHQFH LV EHWZHHQ SHUFHSWLRQ DQG MXGJPHQW DV D ZD\ RI OLIH D PHWKRG RI GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKH VXUURXQGLQJ ZRUOG $ SUHIn HUHQFH IRU D OLIH WKDW LV RUJDQL]HG V\VWHPDWLF DQG SODQQHG LV D SUHIn HUHQFH IRU D -XGJLQJ -f ZD\ RI OLIH $ 3HUFHSWLYH 3f ZD\ RI OLIH LV D SUHIHUHQFH IRU D OLIH WKDW LV DGDSWLYH IOH[LEOH DQG VSRQWDQHRXV -XQJnV WKHRU\ DVVXPHV WKDW D PDWXUH SHUVRQ XVHV DOO HLJKW RI WKH DERYH UHDGLO\ DQG HIIHFWLYHO\ DV WKH RFFDVLRQ GHPDQGV 7KDW LV RQH VRPHWLPHV WDNHV WKH ([WUDYHUWHG DWWLWXGH ZLWK KLV DWWHQWLRQ RQ ZKDW LV RXWVLGH KLPVHOI DQG VRPHn WLPHV WDNHV WKH ,QWURYHUWHG DWWLWXGH ZLWK KLV DWWHQWLRQ RQ WKH LGHDV ZLWKLQ KLV KHDG +H DW WLPHV IRFXVHV KLV SHUFHSWLRQ RQ ZKDW WKH VLWXDWLRQ DFWXDOO\ LV DQG DW RWKHU WLPHV LV VHHLQJ ZKDW LW PLJKW EHFRPH +H VRPHWLPHV PDNHV GHFLVLRQV ORJLFDOO\ DQG LPSDUWLDOO\ DQG DW RWKHU WLPHV E\ FKRRVLQJ ZKDW KH FDUHV PRVW GHHSO\ DERXW +H VRPHWLPHV LV V\VWHPDWLF DQG FRQWUROOHG DQG DW RWKHU WLPHV FDQ EH DGDSWDEOH DQG VSRQWDQHRXV Sf

PAGE 18

7KH WKHRU\ DOVR DVVXPHV WKDW RQH SROH RI HDFK SUHIHUHQFH KDV JUHDWHU QDWXUDO DSSHDO DQG WKDW DQ LQGLYLGXDO XQOHVV KLQGHUHG ZLOO XVH WKH SUHIHUUHG ZD\ ZKHQHYHU KH FDQ GHYHORSLQJ LW DQG VWUHQJWKHQLQJ LW WKURXJK XVH 2QHnV SUHIHUHQFH DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI ( RU 6 RU 1 7 RU ) DQG RU 3 GHWHUPLQH RQHnV SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH $OWRJHWKHU VL[n WHHQ FKDUDFWHULVWLF W\SHV DUH SRVVLEOH 2QHnV RULHQWDWLRQ WR WKH ZRUOG ( RU SHUPHDWHV RQHnV GDLO\ OLIH 7RJHWKHU SHUFHSWLRQ DQG MXGJPHQW FRQVWLWXWH D ODUJH SRUWLRQ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV WRWDO PHQWDO IXQFWLRQLQJ 7KH\ PXVW DOVR JRYHUQ D ODUJH SRUWLRQ RI KLV RXWHU EHKDYLRU VLQFH E\ GHILQLWLRQ KLV SHUFHSn WLRQ GHWHUPLQHV ZKDW KH VHHV LQ D VLWXDWLRQ DQG KLV MXGJPHQW GHWHUPLQHV ZKDW KH GHFLGHV WR GR DERXW LW ,V LW QRW SRVVLEOH WKHQ WKDW SHUn IRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV LV LQIOXHQFHG E\ SUHIHUUHG PRGHV RI SHUFHLYLQJ DQG MXGJLQJ" 5HODWLRQVKLS RI 7\SH WR 6FKRODVWLF 3HUIRUPDQFH 6WXGLHV UHSRUWHG VKRZ W\SH FODVVLILFDWLRQV WR EH UHODWHG WR WZR GLVWLQFW IDFWRUV ZKLFK FRQWULEXWH WR VFKRODVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH f DSWLn WXGH DQG f DFKLHYHPHQW $SWLWXGH 'DWD FROOHFWHG E\ +ROODQG DQG 1LFKROV IURP D UDQGRP VDPSOH RI PDOH 1DWLRQDO 0HULW )LQDOLVWV VKRZHG D SUHGRPLQDQFH RI ,QWURYHUWHG DQG ,QWXLWLYH W\SHV )LIW\HLJKW SHUFHQW RI WKH VDPSOH ZHUH ,QWURn YHUWHG DQG b ZHUH ,QWXLWLYH f 7KHVH WZR LQGLFHV WHQG WR EH IRXQG OHVV IUHTXHQWO\ LQ JHQHUDO SRSXODWLRQ GLVWULEXWLRQV $FFRUGLQJ WR 0\HUV WKH SUHSRQGHUDQFH RI ,QWURYHUWHG DQG ,QWXLWLYH W\SHV DPRQJ WKH

PAGE 19

WKH 1DWLRQDO 0HULW )LQDOLVWV VXJJHVWV WKDW VFKRODVWLF DFKLHYHPHQW DV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH 6$7 LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKHVH WZR W\SHV f 0\HUVn RZQ VDPSOH RI HOYHQ FODVVHV IURP HLJKW OLEHUDO DUWV DQG HQJLQHHULQJ FROOHJHV VKRZHG VFRUHV IRU VWXGHQWV KDYLQJ ,QWURYHUVLRQ ,QWXLWLRQ RU 3HUFHSWLYH SUHIHUHQFHV WR EH GHYLDWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ 3 f XSZDUG IURP WKH PHDQ 6$79 IRU WKH FODVV DV D ZKROH 7KH GLIIHUn HQFHV IRU WKH 7KLQNLQJ RU )HHOLQJ SUHIHUHQFH ZHUH OHVV FRQVLVWHQW DQG IHOO VKRUW RI VLJQLILFDQFH 3 f IRU HQJLQHHULQJ VWXGHQWV f 6LPLODU UHVXOWV ZHUH UHSRUWHG E\ 0F&DXOOH\ 0HDQ 6$79 VFRUHV IRU D VDPSOH RI IUHVKPHQ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD JDYH ,QWURn YHUWV DQ DGYDQWDJH RI SRLQWV RYHU ([WUDYHUWV ,QWXLWLYHV DQ DGn YDQWDJH RI SRLQWV RYHU 6HQVLQJV DQG 3HUFHSWLYHV DQ DGYDQWDJH RI SRLQWV RYHU -XGJLQJ W\SHV /LWWOH GLIIHUHQFH FRXOG EH VHHQ EHn WZHHQ 7KLQNLQJ DQG )HHOLQJ W\SHV f 0F&DXOOH\nV ILQGLQJV FRQILUP WKH UHVXOWV RI DQ HDUOLHU VWXG\ RI $XEXUQ 8QLYHUVLW\ IUHVKPHQ FRQn GXFWHG E\ *UDQW f &RQDU\ VWXGLHG HGXFDWLRQDO YDULDEOHV RI $XEXUQ 8QLYHUVLW\ IUHVKPHQ XVLQJ UDQN FRUUHODWLRQ WHFKQLTXHV 5HVXOWV VKRZHG PHDQ VFRUHV IRU ,QWURYHUWHG ,QWXLWLYH W\SHV WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ 3 f KLJKHU WKDQ PHDQ VFRUHV IRU ([WUDYHUWHG 6HQVLQJ W\SHV RQ WKH $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 7HVW f 7\SH KDV EHHQ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK VFRUHV RQ 7HUPDQnV &RQFHSW 0DVWHU\ 7HVW IRU D VDPSOH RI PDOH IUHVKPHQ DW %URZQ 8QLYHUVLW\ DQG D VLPLODU VDPSOH DW :HVOH\DQ 8QLYHUVLW\ 2Q 7HUPDQnV &RQFHSW 0DVWHU\ 7HVW ZKLFK LV GHVLJQHG WR PHDVXUH WKH KLJKHVW UDQJHV RI YRFDEXODU\ DQG YHUEDO UHDn VRQLQJ ,QWURYHUW PDOHV DSSHDU WR HTXDO RU HYHQ H[FHO ,QWXLWLYH PDOHV ,Q WKH WZR PDOH IUHVKPDQ FODVVHV IRU ZKLFK &RQFHSW 0DVWHU\ VFRUHV DUH

PAGE 20

DYDLODEOH WKH ,QWURYHUWVn DGYDQWDJH ZDV SRLQWV DW %URZQ FRPSDUHG ZLWKnWKH ,QWXLWLYHVn SRLQWV DQG SRLQWV DW :HVOH\DQ FRPSDUHG ZLWK SRLQWV 7KLV ILQGLQJ LV LQ DFFRUG ZLWK ,QWURYHUWVn SRVWXn ODWHG LQWHUHVW LQ FRQFHSWV DQG LGHDV f ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG KRZHYHU WKDW WKH &RQFHSW 0DVWHU\ 7HVW LV QRW WLPHG VR WKDW WKH ,QWXLWLYHVn VSHHG LV RI QR SDUWLFXODU DVVHW DQG WKH ,QWURYHUWVn GHSWK FDQ EH IXOO\ XWLOL]HG 5HJUHVVLRQ FXUYHV RI WKH &RQFHSW 0DVWHU\ VFRUHV IRU WKH %URZQ IUHVKPHQ XSRQ 6HQVLQJ DQG ,QWXLWLRQ KDYH EHHQ SORWWHG VHSDUDWHO\ IRU ([WUDYHUWV DQG IRU ,QWURYHUWV )RU ([WUDYHUWV D PLOG SUHIHUHQFH IRU ,QWXLWLRQ DSSHDUV WR FRQWULEXWH QRWKLQJ DW DOO WR PDVWHU\ RI WKH FRQn FHSWV XVHG LQ WKH WHVW 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG IRU ,QWURYHUWV HDFK LQFUHn PHQW LQ ,QWXLWLRQ UDLVHV WKH PHDQ &RQFHSW 0DVWHU\ VFRUH DERYH WKH DYHUn DJH 7KXV HYLGHQFH VXJJHVWV WKDW ,QWURYHUWV XVH WKHLU PLQGV LQFOXGLQJ WKHLU ,QWXLWLRQ LQ D ZD\ WKDW LV GLIIHUHQW DQG DGYDQWDJHRXV IRU GHDOLQJ ZLWK LQWULFDFLHV RI ODQJXDJH DQG WKRXJKW f 7KH OLWHUDWXUH FRQWDLQV IHZHU UHIHUHQFHV WR WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHn WZHHQ ,4 DQG W\SH 0\HUV KRZHYHU REVHUYHV WKDW ,QWURYHUWV ZLWK ,QWXLWLRQ KDYH WKH KLJKHVW PHDQ ,4 EDVHG RQ UHJUHVVLRQ FXUYHV SORWWHG IRU PDOH FROOHJH SUHSDUDWRU\ VWXGHQWV f $FKLHYHPHQW $FKLHYHPHQW LV DQRWKHU FULWHULRQ RI VFKRODVWLF VXFFHVV *UDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH RI KLJK VFKRRO DQG FROOHJH VWXGHQWV SURYLGH HYLGHQFH RI DFKLHYHPHQW 0\HUV VKRZV FRUUHODWLRQV RI JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH ZLWK W\SH SUHIn HUHQFH IRU VHYHQ PDOH VDPSOHV IURP OLEHUDO DUWV FROOHJHV IRXU

PAGE 21

HQJLQHHULQJ FROOHJHV DQG RQH VFKRRO RI ILQDQFH DQG FRPPHUFH D OLEHUDO DUWVn FROOHJH IRU ZRPHQ D ODUJH VDPSOH RI PDOH KLJK VFKRRO VWXGHQWV DQG IRU D ODUJH VDPSOH RI IHPDOH KLJK VFKRRO VWXGHQWV )URP WKHVH FRUn UHODWLRQV LW DSSHDUV WKDW ,QWURYHUWV DQG ,QWXLWLYHV WHQG WR KDYH KLJKHU JUDGHV DV ZRXOG EH H[SHFWHG IURP WKHLU KLJKHU DSWLWXGHf WKDQ ([WUD YHUWV RU 6HQVLQJ W\SHV :KLOH FRUUHODWLRQV IRU ,QWURYHUWV DQG ,QWXLn WLYHV DUH FRQVLVWHQW IRU DOO VDPSOHV FRUUHODWLRQV IDOO VKRUW RI VLJn QLILFDQFH DW WKH OHYHO IRU VDPSOHV RQ ,QWURYHUVLRQ DQG IRU VDPSOHV RQ ,QWXLWLRQ &RUUHODWLRQV ZLWK WKH -XGJLQJ DWWLWXGH DOVR LQGLn FDWH WKDW -XGJLQJ VWXGHQWV WHQG WR KDYH KLJKHU JUDGHV LQ VSLWH RI ORZHU DSWLWXGHf &RUUHODWLRQV ZLWK WKH -XGJLQJ DWWLWXGH DUH VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO IRU RI WKH VDPSOHV &RUUHODWLRQV ZLWK WKH 7KLQNLQJ )HHOLQJ SUHIHUHQFH DUH VPDOOHU DQG OLNH WKH FRUUHODWLRQV ZLWK DSWLn WXGH VRPHZKDW OHVV FRQVLVWHQW f 6WXG\LQJ ILUVW TXDUWHU JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV IRU FROOHJH IUHVKn PHQ 0F&DXOOH\ UHSRUWV WKDW ,QWURYHUWHG ,QWXLWLYH W\SHV UDQNHG KLJKHVW KROGLQJ WKH ILUVW IRXU SODFHV RQ DQ RUGLQDO VFDOH RI VL[WHHQ W\SHV 0F&DXOOH\nV GDWD WHQG WR VXSSRUW WKDW RI 0\HUV ZLWK ,QWURYHUWV KDYLQJ PHDQ JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV KLJKHU WKDQ ([WUDYHUWV ,QWXLWLYHV +LJKHU WKDQ 6HQVLQJ -XGJLQJ KLJKHU WKDQ 3HUFHSWLYH DQG QR GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ 7KLQNLQJ DQG )HHOLQJ 7KH PHDQ *3$ IRU WKH KLJKHVW UDQNLQJ W\SH ,173 ZDV DQG IRU WKH ORZHVW (673 7KH LQYHVWLJDWRU VWDWHV WKDW (673 DQG (6)3 DUH WKH PRVW DFDGHPLFDOO\ YXOQHUDEOHf§WKHLU SUDFn WLFDO DFWLRQRULHQWHG VRFLDEOH VSRQWDQHRXV VW\OH LV QRW FRQGXFLYH WR ORQJ KRXUV LQ OLEUDULHV Sf $PRQJ WKH $XEXUQ 8QLYHUVLW\ IUHVKPHQ VWXGLHG E\ &RQDU\ ,QWXLn WLYH 7KLQNLQJ W\SHV ZHUH IRXQG WR KDYH D VLJQLILFDQWO\ 3 f ODUJHU

PAGE 22

UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQ WKH JUDGH SRLQW UDQJH RI ZKLOH 6HQVLQJ )HHOn LQJ W\SHV ZHUH IRXQG WR KDYH D VLJQLILFDQWO\ 3 f ODUJHU UHSUHVHQWDn WLRQ LQ WKH JUDGH SRLQW UDQJH RI WKDQ ZRXOG EH HPSLULFDOO\ H[SHFWHG f 7KHVH ILQGLQJV WHQG WR VXSSRUW WKH WKHRU\ WKDW 7KLQNLQJ LQWXLWRUV DFKLHYH GLIIHUHQWO\ WKDQ )HHOLQJ VHQVRUV KRZHYHU VLQFH WKH SUHIHUHQFHV IRU 7KLQNLQJ DQG )HHOLQJ ZHUH QRW VWXGLHG VHSDUDWHO\ IURP ,QWXLWLRQ DQG 6HQVLQJ LW LV QRW NQRZQ IURP &RQDU\nV UHVHDUFK WR ZKDW H[WHQW 7KLQNLQJ DQG )HHOLQJ LQIOXHQFH JUDGHV 6WULHNHU DQG RWKHUV LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH DELOLW\ RI WKH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU WR SUHGLFW JUDGHV DW :HVOH\DQ DQG &DOWHFK 3UHIHUHQFHV IRU ,QWURYHUVLRQ DQG IRU -XGJPHQW FRUUHODWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ 3 f DW :HVOH\DQ &RUUHODWLRQV ZHUH JHQHUDOO\ ORZHU LQ WKH &DOWHFK VDPSOH EXW WKH VDPH SUHIHUHQFHV FRUUHODWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ DW WKH OHYHO 7KH LQn YHVWLJDWRUV FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH ,QGLFDWRU KDG VRPH DELOLW\ WR SUHGLFW JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH EXW WKLV DELOLW\ YDULHG ZLWK WKH VDPSOH S f 6XPPDU\ ,Q VXPPDU\ WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZHG LQGLFDWHV WKDW %HKDYLRU LV LQIOXHQFHG E\ SUHIHUUHG PHWKRGV RI XVLQJ SHUFHSn WLRQ DQG MXGJPHQW DQG E\ DQ ([WUDYHUWHG RU ,QWURYHUWHG RULHQWDWLRQ WR WKH ZRUOG $SWLWXGH LV HQKDQFHG E\ D SUHIHUHQFH IRU ,QWURYHUVLRQ ,QWXn LWLRQ DQG 3HUFHSWLRQ $FKLHYHPHQW LV HQKDQFHG E\ D SUHIHUHQFH IRU ,QWURYHUVLRQ ,QWXLWLRQ DQG -XGJPHQW

PAGE 23

$ SUHIHUHQFH IRU 7KLQNLQJ RU )HHOLQJ FRQWULEXWHV OHVV VLJQLIn LFDQWO\ WR VFKRODVWLF SHUIRUPDQFH

PAGE 24

&+$37(5 ,,, 0(7+2' 2) 678'< 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV GHVLJQHG WR H[SORUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUn IRUPDQFH RQ WKH 0%7, DQG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV 7KH RYHUDOO K\SRWKHVLV \LHOGHG WKH IROORZLQJ QXOO K\SRWKHVHV WR EH WHVWHG 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUn PDQFH RQ WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUn PDQFH RQ WKH VXEVFDOHV RI WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH 7KHUH LV QR RQH W\SH ZKLFK SHUIRUPV FRQVLVWHQWO\ KLJKHU RQ WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ 7KHUH LV QR RQH W\SH ZKLFK SHUIRUPV FRQVLVWHQWO\ KLJKHU RQ WKH VXEVFDOHV RI WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ 7KHUH LV QR RQH W\SH ZKLFK SHUIRUPV FRQVLVWHQWO\ ORZHU RQ WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ 7KHUH LV QR RQH W\SH ZKLFK SHUIRUPV FRQVLVWHQWO\ ORZHU RQ WKH VXEVFDOHV RI WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ 3HUIRUPDQFH E\ W\SH GRHV QRW GLIIHU EHWZHHQ DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH DQG EDFFDODXUHDWH GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV

PAGE 25

7ZR LQVWUXPHQWV ZHUH XVHG WR FROOHFW GDWD 7KH 0%7, ZDV DGPLQn LVWHUHG WR DOO SDUWLFLSDQWV ZKLOH DWWHQGLQJ QXUVLQJ VFKRRO 7KH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ FRQVLVWLQJ RI ILYH VXEWHVWV ZDV WDNHQ E\ DOO SDUn WLFLSDQWV IROORZLQJ JUDGXDWLRQ 7KH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU 7KH 0%7, ZDV GHYHORSHG E\ 0UV ,VDEHO %ULJJV 0\HUV DQG KHU PRWKHU 0UV .DWKHULQH & %ULJJV DQG ILUVW SXEOLVKHG E\ WKH (GXFDn WLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH 3ULQFHWRQ 1HZ -HUVH\ LQ %DVHG RQ WKH SHUVRQDOLW\ WKHRU\ RI &DUO -XQJ f LW ZDV GHVLJQHG WR LGHQWLI\ SUHIn HUHQFHV IRU IRXU GLFKRWRPRXV GLPHQVLRQV ([WUDYHUVLRQ,QWURYHUVLRQ 6HQVLQJ,QWXLWLRQ 7KLQNLQJ)HHOLQJ DQG -XGJLQJ3HUFHLYLQJ 7KH ([WUDYHUVLQ (f ,QWURYHUVLRQ ,f SUHIHUHQFH LQGLFDWHV WKH UHVSRQGHQWnV GLUHFWLRQ RI LQWHUHVW WRZDUG WKH RXWHU ZRUOG RI SHRSOH DFWLRQ DQG WKLQJV RU WRZDUG WKH LQQHU ZRUOG RI LGHDV 7KH 6HQVLQJ 6f ,QWXLWLRQ 1f SUHIHUHQFH LQGLFDWHV WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV PDQQHU RI REWDLQLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ HLWKHU WKURXJK GLUHFW H[SHULHQFH RU WKURXJK LQIHUUHG PHDQLQJ 7KH 7KLQNLQJ 7f )HHOLQJ )f SUHIHUHQFH LGHQWLn ILHV WKH ZD\ LQ ZKLFK WKH LQGLYLGXDO PDNHV GHFLVLRQV HLWKHU RQ WKH EDVLV RI ORJLFDO RUGHU RU SHUVRQDO LPSRUWDQFH 7KH -XGJLQJ -f 3HUFHLYLQJ 3f SUHIHUHQFH LQGLFDWHV WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV DWWLWXGH WRZDUG WKH RXWVLGH ZRUOG HLWKHU SODQQHG DQG RUGHUO\ RU IOH[LEOH DQG VSRQn WDQHRXV 7KXV WKHUH DUH WZR PRGHV RI MXGJLQJf§7KLQNLQJ DQG )HHOLQJ DQG WZR PRGHV RI SHUFHLYLQJf§6HQVLQJ DULG ,QWXLWLRQ :KLFK RI WKHVH LV WKH GRPLQDQW RU PRVW SUHIHUUHG SURFHVV LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH SUHIn HUHQFH IRU ([WUDYHUVLQ RU ,QWURYHUVLRQ :KLOH HYHU\RQH XVHV DOO RI

PAGE 26

WKH HLJKW SURFHVVHV DW VRPH WLPH RU DQRWKHU GXULQJ KLV GDLO\ OLIH KH SUHIHUV RQH RI WKH WZR SURFHVVHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ HDFK GLPHQVLRQ DQG LW PD\ EH DVVXPHG LV PRUH FRPIRUWDEOH DQG HIIHFWLYH ZKHQ XWLOL]LQJ KLV SUHIHUHQFHV 7KH 0%7, LV D LWHP IRUFHG FKRLFH LQYHQWRU\ ZKLFK PD\ EH VHOIDGPLQLVWHUHG LQ DERXW PLQXWHV ,Q D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH ,QGLn FDWRU 0F&DXOOH\ VWDWHG (DFK TXHVWLRQ ZDV VHOHFWHG IRU D VSHFLILF WKHRUHWn LFDO UHDVRQ GHVLJQHG WR EH QRQWKUHDWHQLQJ >DQG@ ZLWKRXW SDWKRORJLFDO RULHQWDWLRQ >DQG HDFK LWHP FKRLFH ZDV@ GHVLJQHG WR EH HTXDOO\ DWWUDFWLYH WR WKH W\SH WR ZKRP LW ZDV GLUHFWHG S f 7KHUH DUH WZR W\SHV RI LWHPVf§SKUDVHV DQG ZRUG SDLUVf§HDFK RI ZKLFK LV VFRUHG RQ RQO\ RQH LQGH[ 7RWDO VFRUHV DUH REWDLQHG IRU HDFK RI WKH HLJKW SURFHVVHV DQG WKH ODUJHU VFRUH RI HDFK SDLU LV FRQVLGn HUHG UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWnV SUHIHUUHG SURFHVV 7KH UHVSRQGHQWnV SHUVRQDOLW\ W\SH PD\ WKHQ EH LQGLFDWHG E\ WKH IRXU OHWWHUV LGHQWLI\LQJ KLV SUHIHUHQFHV ( RU 6 RU 1 7 RU ) DQG RU 3 7KH VL[WHHQ SRVVLEOH FRPELQDWLRQV RI SUHIHUHQFHV DUH SUHn VHQWHG LQ )LJXUH (DFK RI WKH W\SH FRPELQDWLRQV KDV FKDUDFWHULVWLF SHUVRQDOLW\ IHDWXUHV 0\HUV S f KDV GHYHORSHG GHVFULSWLRQV RI HDFK W\SH DQG D FRQGHQVHG YHUVLRQ KDV EHHQ LQFOXGHG LQ $SSHQGL[ $ 7KH PDQLIHVWDWLRQ RI SHUVRQDOLW\ W\SH LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI WKH IRXU SUHIHUHQFHV 6RPH HIIHFWV RI WKH FRPELQDWLRQV RI SHUFHSn WLRQ DQG MXGJPHQW DUH VXPPDUL]HG LQ $SSHQGL[ $ 1DWLRQDO QRUPV IRU WKH ,QGLFDWRU KDYH EHHQ GHYHORSHG E\ 0\HUV f DV ZHOO DV GLVWULEXWLRQV RI WKH W\SHV DPRQJ VHOHFWHG HGXFDWLRQDO

PAGE 27

67 6) 1) 17 ,f§,67,6),1),17,f§S ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 (f§3 (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 (f§(67(6)(1)(17),*85( 3(5621$/,7< 7<3(r r ,% 0\HUV ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7R 7\SH 6ZDUWK PRUH 3HQQV\OYDQLD %\ WKH $XWKRU f Sf OHYHOV DQG RFFXSDWLRQDO DUHDV ZKLFK LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH DUH DSSUR[n LPDWHO\ WKUHH H[WUDYHUWV WR RQH LQWURYHUW DQG WKUHH SHUVRQV ZKR SUHn IHU VHQVLQJ WR RQH ZKR SUHIHUV LQWXLWLRQ LQ WKH JHQHUDO SRSXODWLRQ $OVR PRUH PHQ SUHIHU WKLQNLQJ DQG PRUH ZRPHQ SUHIHU IHHOLQJ DV D EDVLV IRU GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ 5HOLDELOLW\ RI WKH ,QGLFDWRU KDV EHHQ GHWHUPLQHG E\ VSOLWKDOI WHWUDFKRULF FRUUHODWLRQV DQG DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH 6SHDUPDQ%URZQ 3URSKHF\ )RUPXOD 0RVW UHOLDELOLWLHV RI WKH LQGLFHV DUH RU EHWWHU DQG WKH UHSRUWHG PHGLDQ UHOLDELOLW\ LV Sf %XURV f FRQVLGHUHG WKHVH UHOLDELOLWLHV FRPSDUDEOH WR WKRVH FDOFXODWHG IURP FRQWLQXRXV VFRUHV DQG WR RWKHU VLPLODU VHOIUHSRUW LQVWUXPHQWV 0\HUV f KDV SURYLGHG FRQVLGHUDEOH HYLGHQFH IRU FRQFXUUHQW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH ,QGLFDWRU E\ FRUUHODWLRQV ZLWK RWKHU LQVWUXPHQWV DV

PAGE 28

ZHOO DV DGGLWLRQDO PHDVXUHV VXFK DV IDFXOW\ UDWLQJV MRE WXUQRYHU DQG FUHDWLYLW\ $OVR HYLGHQFH IRU FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ ZDV REWDLQHG IURP FRUUHODWLRQV FRUUHFWHG IRU GLIIHULQJ UHOLDELOLWLHV DQG DWWHQXDWLRQ RI RU EHWWHU ZLWK WKH *UD\ :KHHOZULJKW 3V\FKRORJLFDO 7\SH 4XHVWLRQn QDLUH ZKLFK ZDV DOVR EDVHG RQ -XQJLDQ SHUVRQDOLW\ WKHRU\ DQG GHYHORSHG LQGHSHQGHQWO\ RI WKH 0%7, 5HODWLYH WR FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ %XURV f LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH 61 DQG 7) VFDOHV SUREDEO\ UHSUHVHQWHG WKH WKHRUHWn LFDO GLPHQVLRQV ZKLOH WKH (O DQG -3 VFDOHV ZHUH PRUH TXHVWLRQDEOH 7KH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ 7KH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ IRU QXUVLQJ JUDGXDWHV LV D VWDQGDUGn L]HG WHVW ZKLFK FRQVLVWV RI ILYH VXEWHVWV WR DVVHVV FRPSHWHQFH LQ 0HGLFDO 1XUVLQJ 6XUJLFDO 1XUVLQJ 3HGLDWULF 1XUVLQJ 3V\n FKLDWULF 1XUVLQJ DQG 2EVWHWULF 1XUVLQJ (DFK VHFWLRQ FRQWDLQV WR REMHFWLYH PXOWLSOH FKRLFH TXHVWLRQV $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ LV WLPHG 'HSHQGLQJ XSRQ WKH QXPEHU RI TXHVWLRQV RQ D VXEWHVW WR PLQXWHV PD\ EH SHUPLWWHG 7KRVH ILQLVKLQJ D VXEWHVW HDUO\ DUH QRW SHUPLWWHG WR OHDYH WKH WHVWLQJ DUHD XQWLO WKH IXOO WLPH SHULRG KDV H[SLUHG 7KH %RDUG ZDV GHYHORSHG DV D SDUW RI WKH 1DWLRQDO /HDJXH IRU 1XUVLQJ 1/1f 7HVW 3RRO DQG DOO ILIW\ VWDWHV FRQWUDFW ZLWK WKH 1/1IRU XVH RI WKH H[DPLQDWLRQ 6DWLVIDFWRU\ SHUIRUPDQFH LQGLFDWHV WKDW D SUDFWLWLRQHU PHHWV OHJDO UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU VDIH SUDFWLFH 8QOLNH DFKLHYHPHQW WHVWV GHVLJQHG WR PHDVXUH PD[LPXP SHUIRUPDQFH %RDUGV DUH GHVLJQHG WR WHVW PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQFH (DFK VXEWHVW FRQWDLQV TXHVWLRQV GHVLJQHG WR WHVW WKH FRJQLWLYH DUHDV RI NQRZOHGJH DSSOLFDWLRQ DQG HYDOXDWLRQ $OWHUQDWH IRUPV RI WKH VXEWHVWV DUH XVHG RQ D URWDWLQJ EDVLV

PAGE 29

'HVFULSWLRQ RI WKH 6DPSOH 7KUHH KXQGUHG DQG WZHOYH JUDGXDWHV IURP WZR VFKRROV ZHUH LQYROYHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KLV WRWDO LQFOXGHV DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH 6DQWD )H &RPn PXQLW\ &ROOHJHf JUDGXDWHV DQG EDFFDODXUHDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGDf JUDGXDWHV 2I WKH DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV ZHUH EODnFN IHPDOHV DQG QLQH ZHUH ZKLWH PDOHV $OO WKH UHVW ZHUH ZKLWH IHPDOHV 6L[ RI WKH EDFFDODXUHDWH JUDGXDWHV ZHUH EODFN IHPDOHV DQG ZHUH ZKLWH PDOHV 7KH UHVW ZHUH ZKLWH IHPDOHV %HFDXVH RI WKH VPDOO QXPEHU RI PDOHV DQG EODFNV DYDLODEOH QR DWWHPSW ZDV PDGH WR DFKLHYH D EHWWHU EDODQFH EHn WZHHQ WKH VH[HV RU WKH UDFHV 7DEOH VKRZV WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI JUDGn XDWHV E\ VFKRRO VH[ DJH DQG UDFH ,Q WKLV VWXG\ DJH UHIHUV WR WKH DJH RI VXEMHFWV LQ \HDUV DW WKH WLPH WKH\ HQWHUHG WKHLU QXUVLQJ PDMRU 7$%/( ',675,%87,21 2) *5$'8$7(6 %< 6&+22/ 6(; $*(r $1' 5$&( 6DQWD )H 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD :KLWH %ODFN :KLWH %ODFN 0DOH )HPDOH 0DOH )HPDOH 0DOH )HPDOH 0DOH )HPDOH \HDUV DQG ROGHU 8QGHU r 5HSUHVHQWV DJH LQ \HDUV DW WLPH RI DGPLVVLRQ WR QXUVLQJ SURJUDP

PAGE 30

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n SUHIHUHQFHV UHVXOWHG LQ VL[WHHQ W\SH FODVVLILFDWLRQV 7KH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI W\SHV E\ VFKRRO LV VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH $GGLWLRQDO WDEOHV LOOXVWUDWLQJ WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI W\SH E\ DJH VH[ UDFH DQG VFKRRO DUH FRQWDLQHG LQ $SSHQGL[ % 6WDWH %RDUG 6FRUHV 7KH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ FKDOOHQJHG DIWHU JUDGXDWLRQ SURn YLGHG WKH UHVW RI WKH GDWD 6HSDUDWH VFRUHV ZHUH DYDLODEOH IRU HDFK RI WKH ILYH VXEVFDOHV 0HGLFDO 1XUVLQJ 6XUJLFDO 1XUVLQJ 3HGLDWULF 1XUVLQJ 3V\FKLDWULF 1XUVLQJ DQG 2EVWHWULF 1XUVLQJ 7KH ILYH VXEVFDOH VFRUHV ZHUH FROOHFWHG LQGLYLGXDOO\ DQG FRPELQHG WR GHWHUPLQH D WRWDO %RDUG VFRUH IRU HDFK SDUWLFLSDQW

PAGE 31

7$%/( ',675,%87,21 2) 7<3(6 %< 6&+22/ ,67,6),1),178QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 1 b 1 b f 1 b 1 b 6DQWD )H 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b 6DQWD )H 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b 6DQWD )H 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (67(6)(1)(178QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b 6DQWD )H 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b 7UHDWPHQW RI 'DWD +\SRWKHVHV QXPEHUV RQH DQG WZR ZHUH WHVWHG ZLWK DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH XVLQJ WKH ) VWDWLVWLF DQG ZLWK WKH 0HGLDQ 7HVW WR GHWHUPLQH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH

PAGE 32

+\SRWKHVHV WKUHH WKURXJK VL[ ZHUH WHVWHG XVLQJ WKH 6FKHIIH 0HWKRG RI PXOWLSOH FRPSDULVRQV DQG WKH 0HGLDQ 7HVW WR GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SHV SHUIRUP GLIIHUHQWO\ RQ %RDUGV +\SRWKHVLV QXPEHU VHYHQ ZDV DOVR WHVWHG XVLQJ DQDO\VLV RI YDULn DQFH WHFKQLTXHV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ W\SH DQG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV LV WKH VDPH IRU DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH DQG EDFFDODXn UHDWH GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ &KL 6TXDUH PHDVXUHV RI FHQWUDO WHQGHQF\ DQG SHUFHQWV ZHUH XVHG WR FKHFN IRU FRQIRXQGLQJ YDULDEOHV

PAGE 33

&+$37(5 ,9 $1$/<6,6 $1' ,17(535(7$7,21 2) '$7$ 7KH GDWD FRQVLVW RI 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ VFRUHV DQG 0%7, SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH IRU EDFFDODXUHDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGDf DQG DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH 6DQWD )H &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHf JUDGXDWHV 7KH %RDUG GDWD FRQVLVW RI VFRUHV RQ ILYH VXEVFDOHV 0HGLFDO 1XUVLQJ 6XUJLFDO 1XUVLQJ 3HGLDWULF 1XUVLQJ 2EVWHWULF 1XUVLQJ DQG 3V\FKLDWULF 1XUVLQJ 7KH 0%7, GDWD FRQVLVW RI W\SH FODVVLILFDn WLRQV DFFRUGLQJ WR ([WUDYHUVLQ (f RU ,QWURYHUVLRQ ,f 6HQVLQJ 6f RU ,QWXLWLRQ 1f 7KLQNLQJ 7f RU )HHOLQJ )f DQG 3HUFHSWLRQ 3f RU -XGJPHQW -f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH VH[ DJH DQG UDFH RI HDFK VXEMHFW ZDV UHFRUGHG 7KH REMHFW RI WKLV DQDO\VLV ZDV WR ILQG WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV LI DQ\ EHWZHHQ %RDUG VFRUHV DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ W\SH ,W ZDV DOVR WKH REn MHFW RI WKLV DQDO\VLV WR GLVFRYHU LI WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZHUH GLIIHUHQW IRU EDFFDODXUHDWH JUDGXDWHV WKDQ IRU DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV 0RUH VSHFLILFDOO\ LW ZDV WKH REMHFW RI WKLV DQDO\VLV WR WHVW WKH IROORZLQJ VHYHQ QXOO K\SRWKHVHV 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH VXEVFDOHV RI WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH

PAGE 34

7KHUH LV QR RQH W\SH ZKLFK SHUIRUPV FRQVLVWHQWO\ f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n QLILFDQWO\ PRUH EODFNV LQ WKH 6DQWD )H SRSXODWLRQ 3 f 7KH 6DQWD )H SRSXODWLRQ LV ROGHU RQ WKH DYHUDJH 3 f DQG PRUH YDULDEOH ZLWK UHVSHFW WR DJH WKDQ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD SRSXODWLRQ 7KH ILJXUHV DUH VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH 1H[W WKH WZR SRSXODWLRQV ZHUH FRPSDUHG ZLWK UHVSHFW WR GLVWULEXn WLRQ RI W\SH 7KH &KL 6TXDUH WHVW RI LQGHSHQGHQFH ZDV XVHG IRU WKLV FRPSDULVRQ 7KH &KL 6TXDUH VWDWLVWLF FDOFXODWHG DW ZLWK GHJUHHV RI IUHHGRP IHOO VKRUW RI VLJQLILF£QFH DW WKH OHYHO $ FRPSDULVRQ RI (6)W\SHV DW ERWK VFKRROV KRZHYHU UHYHDOHG VLJQLILn FDQWO\ PRUH 3 f (6)W\SHV LQ WKH 6DQWD )H SRSXODWLRQ WKDQ LQ WKH

PAGE 35

7$%/( &203$5,621 2) 3238/$7,216 $&&25',1* 72 6(; 5$&( $1' $*( 6DQWD )H 8 RI ) 7RWDO 6DPSOH b 0DOH b )HPDOH b :KLWH b %ODFN If§f r $JH 0HDQ r 6' r 5DQJH r 6LJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD SRSXODWLRQ *HQHUDOO\ WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI W\SHV LQ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD SRSXODWLRQ DSSHDUV WR EH WKH VDPH DV LQ WKH 6DQWD )H SRSXODWLRQ 7KH H[FHSWLRQ LV WKDW WKHUH DUH VLJn QLILFDQWO\ PRUH (6)W\SHV LQ WKH 6DQWD )H SRSXODWLRQ 7KH WZR SRSXODWLRQV ZHUH DOVR FRPSDUHG ZLWK UHVSHFW WR %RDUG VFRUHV ERWK IRU WRWDO VFRUH DQG IRU VXEVFDOH VFRUHV KROGLQJ W\SH FRQn VWDQW 8VLQJ D WZRIDFWRU $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH DQG D OHYHO RI VLJn QLILFDQFH WKHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH 6DQWD )H DQG WKH 8QLYHUn VLW\ RI )ORULGD SRSXODWLRQV RQ 0HGLFDO VFRUH 6XUJLFDO VFRUH 3HGLDWULF VFRUH 2EVWHWULF VFRUH RU RQ WRWDO VFRUH 7KHVH UHVXOWV DUH VXPPDUn L]HG LQ 7DEOHV WKURXJK 7KHUH LV D GLIIHUHQFH RQ 3V\FKLDWULF VFRUH 7DEOH f ZLWK WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD KDYLQJ WKH KLJKHVW PHDQ

PAGE 36

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r (UURU &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO GI 6HTXHQWLDO 66 ) 9DOXH 3DUWLDO 06 ) 9DOXH 6FKRRO 0%7, r 6FKRRO [ 0%7, r 6LJQLILFDQW DW OHYHO

PAGE 37

7$%/( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 7$%/( )25 685*,&$/ 6&25(6 6RXUFH GI 66 06 ) 9DOXH 5HJUHVVLRQ (UURU &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO 6HTXHQWLDO 3DUWLDO GI 66 ) 9DOXH 06 ) 9DOXH 6FKRRO 0%7, 6FKRRO [ 0%7, 7$%/( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 7$%/( )25 3(',$75,& 6&25(6 6RXUFH GI 66 06 ) 9DOXH 5HJUHVVLRQ r (UURU &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO GI 6HTXHQWLDO 66 ) 9DOXH 3DUWLDO 06 ) 9DOXH 6FKRRO 0%7, r 6FKRRO [ 0%7, r 6LJQLILFDQW DW OHYHO

PAGE 38

7$%/( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 7$%/( )25 2%67(75,& 6&25(6 6RXUFH GI 66 06 ) 9DOXH 5HJUHVVLRQ r (UURU &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO 6HTXHQWLDO 3DUWLDO GI 66 ) 9DOXH 06 ) 9DOXH 6FKRRO 0%7, r 6FKRRO [ 0%7, r 6LJQLILFDQW DW OHYHO 7$%/( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 7$%/( )25 36<&+,$75,& 6&25(6 6RXUFH GI 66 06 ) 9DOXH 5HJUHVVLRQ r (UURU &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO 6HTXHQWLDO 3DUWLDO GI 66 ) 9DOXH 06 ) 9DOXH 6FKRRO r 0%7, r 6FKRRO [ 0%7, r 6LJQLILFDQW DW OHYHO

PAGE 39

7$%/( $1$/<6,6 2) 9$5,$1&( 7$%/( )25 727$/ %2$5' 6&25(6 6RXUFH GI 66 06 ) 9DOXH 5HJUHVVLRQ r (UURU &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO GI 6HTXHQWLDO 66 3DUWLDO ) 9DOXH 06 ) 9DOXH 6FKRRO 0%7, r 6FKRRO [ 0%7, r 6LJQLILFDQW DW OHYHO 7$%/( 0($1 %2$5' 6&25(6 %< 6&+22/ 0HGLFDO 6XUJLFDO 3HGLDWULF 2EVWHWULF 3V\FKLDWULF 7RWDO 6DQWD )H 0HDQ 6' 8 RI ) 0HDQ 6'

PAGE 40

7DEOH VXPPDUL]HV WKH VRXUFHV RI YDULDQFH LQ WRWDO %RDUG VFRUHV $Q ) YDOXH VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO ZDV REWDLQHG IRU 0%7, W\SH RQ WKH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH 7KHUHIRUH LW ZDV SRVVLEOH WR UHMHFW WKH K\SRWKHVLV RI QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV DQG SV\FKRn ORJLFDO W\SH ,W ZDV DOVR SRVVLEOH WR UHMHFW WKH VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV RI QR UHODn WLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ VXEVFDOHV DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH 6LJn QLILFDQW ) YDOXHV 3 f IRU 0%7, W\SH ZHUH REWDLQHG IRU 0HGLFDO VFRUHV 3HGLDWULF VFRUHV 2EVWHWULF VFRUHV DQG 3V\FKLDWULF VFRUHV 7KHVH UHVXOWV DUH VKRZQ RQ 7DEOHV DQG 7KH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RI 6XUJLFDO 6FRUHV 7DEOH f IDLOHG WR REWDLQ DQ ) YDOXH VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO 7KHUHIRUH LW ZDV SRVn VLEOH WR UHMHFW K\SRWKHVLV QXPEHU WZR RQO\ IRU IRXU RI ILYH VXEVFDOHV 7R GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SHV KDYH GLIIHUHQW VFRUHV VSHFLILF W\SHV ZHUH FRPSDUHG XVLQJ WKH 6FKHIIH 0HWKRG RI PXOWLSOH FRPn SDULVRQ &RPSDULVRQV ZHUH PDGH IRU HDFK RI WKH ILYH VXEVFDOHV DV ZHOO DV IRU WKH WRWDO %RDUG VFRUH ,QFOXGHG ZHUH $OO SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV JHQHUDWHG E\ FODVVLI\LQJ VXEMHFWV DFFRUGLQJ WR RQO\ RQH 0%7, SUHIHUHQFH HJ ( YV 6 YV 1 HW FHWHUD $OO SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV JHQHUDWHG E\ FODVVLI\LQJ VXEMHFWV DFFRUGLQJ WR WZR 0%7, SUHIHUHQFHV HJ (1 YV (6 ,1 YV (1 HW FHWHUD $OO SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV JHQHUDWHG E\ FODVVLI\LQJ VXEMHFWV DFFRUGLQJ WR DOO IRXU 0%7, SUHIHUHQFHV HJ ,67YV (67(1)3 YV (67HW FHWHUD

PAGE 41

$OO SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV IHOO VKRUW RI VLJQLILFDQFH DW WKH OHYHO %HFDXVH VDPSOH VL]HV ZHUH UHGXFHG ZKHQ GRLQJ SDLUZLVH FRPSDULn VRQV WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ W\SHV ZRXOG KDYH WR EH ODUJH WR EH VLJQLILn FDQW %DVHG RQ WKH 6FKHIIH 0HWKRG RI PXOWLSOH FRPSDULVRQV LW ZDV QRW SRVVLEOH WR LGHQWLI\ W\SHV ZKLFK SHUIRUP FRQVLVWHQWO\ KLJKHU RU ORZHU WKDQ RWKHU W\SHV RQ %RDUGV RU RQ VXEVFDOHV RI %RDUGV WKHUHIRUH K\SRWKn HVHV WKUHH WKURXJK VL[ ZHUH QRW UHMHFWHG 6HH WDEOHV LQ $SSHQGL[ &f )URP 7DEOHV WKURXJK LW FDQ EH VHHQ WKDW VRPH W\SHV WHQG WR UDQN KLJKHU WKDQ RWKHU W\SHV ,W FDQ DOVR EH VHHQ WKDW UDQN RUGHU SRVLn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f KDYH IRXQG WKH 0%7, WR EH D SV\FKRPHWULFDOO\ VWDEOH LQVWUXPHQW ZKHQ DSSOLHG WR EODFN SRSXODWLRQV KRZHYHU WR SURYLGH HGXn FDWLRQDO RSSRUWXQLWLHV WR PLQRULWLHV WKHUH KDV EHHQ D WHQGHQF\ LQ SDVW \HDUV WR XVH GLIIHUHQW DGPLVVLRQV FULWHULD IRU EODFNV $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH SURFHHGLQJV ZHUH GRQH IRU ZKLWHV RQO\ WR FRQWURO IRU D SRVVLEOH VDPSOLQJ ELDV

PAGE 42

7$%/( 5$1. 25'(5 2) 7<3(6 %< 0($1 0(',&$/ 6&25(6 ,67,6),1),171 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H (67(6)(1)(171 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H

PAGE 43

7$%/( 5$1. 25'(5 2) 7<3(6 %< 0($1 685*,&$/ 6&25(6 ,67,6),1),171 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H (67(6)(1)(171 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H

PAGE 44

7$%/( 5$1. 25'(5 2) 7<3(6 %< 0($1 3(',$75,& 6&25(6 ,67,6),1),171 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H (67(6)(1)(171 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H

PAGE 45

7$%/( 5$1. 25'(5 2) 7<3(6 %< 0($1 2%67(75,& 6&25(6 ,67,6),1),171 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H (67(6)(1)(171 0HDQ 5DQN 1 f 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H

PAGE 46

7$%/( 5$1. 25'(5 2) 7<3(6 %< 0($1 36<&+,$75,& 6&25(6 ,67,6),1),171 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H (67(6)(1)(171 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H

PAGE 47

7$%/( 5$1. 25'(5 2) 7<3(6 %< 0($1 6&25( 21 727$/ 67$7( %2$5' (;$0,1$7,21 ,67,6),1),171 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H (67(6)(1)(171 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 1 0HDQ 5DQN 8 RI ) 6DQWD )H

PAGE 48

7$%/( 7+( 0(',$1 7(67 &203$5,1* 0%7, 7<3(6 21 67$7( %2$5' (;$0,1$7,21 6&25(6 9DULDEOH &KL 6TXDUH GI 3 0HGLFDO 6FRUH 6XUJLFDO 6FRUH 3HGLDWULF 6FRUH 2EVWHWULF 6FRUH 3V\FKLDWULF 6FRUH 7RWDO 6FRUH 7$%/( 0(',$1 %2$5' 6&25(6 %< 7<3( 7\SH 0HGLFDO 6XUJLFDO 3HGLDWULF 2EVWHWULF 3V\FKLDWULF 7RWDO (67(673 (6)(6)3 (17(173 (1)(1)3 ,67,673 ,6),6)3 ,17,173 ,1),1)3

PAGE 49

5HVXOWV VKRZHG W\SH WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG DW WKH OHYHO WR 7RWDO %RDUG VFRUHV DQG WR 0HGLFDO 2EVWHWULF DQG 3HGLDWULF VXEn VFDOH VFRUHV 7\SH ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR 6XUJLFDO RU 3HGLDWULF VXEVFDOH VFRUHV 7KHVH UHVXOWV DUH VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH 7KLV DQDO\VLV DOVR VXSSRUWV UHMHFWLRQ RI WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WKHUH LV QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV RU RQ VXEVFDOHV RI %RDUGV DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH 7$%/( ())(&7 2) 7<3( 21 67$7( %2$5' 6&25(6 :+,7(6 21/< 9DULDEOH GI ) 3 0HGLFDO 6FRUH 6XUJLFDO 6FRUH 3HGLDWULF 6FRUH 2EVWHWULF 6FRUH 3V\FKLDWULF 6FRUH 7RWDO 6FRUH $QDO\VLV RI ZKLWHV RQO\ SURGXFHG UHVXOWV UHVHPEOLQJ WKRVH RI WKH WRWDO SRSXODWLRQ 7KDW LV WKHUH ZHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW 3 f LQWHUn DFWLRQV EHWZHHQ W\SH DQG VFKRRO RU EHWZHHQ DQ\ SDLU RI 0%7, W\SHV $OVR ZKLWH VXEMHFWV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD KDYH D VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU 3 f 3V\FKLDWULF VFRUH WKDQ ZKLWH VWXGHQWV DW 6DQWD )H &RQVLGHUDWLRQ RI $JH 2Q WKH DYHUDJH 6DQWD )H VXEMHFWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ ROGHU 3 f WKDQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD VXEMHFWV ,W ZDV SRVWXODWHG WKDW PDWXULW\

PAGE 50

PD\ LQIOXHQFH SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV 7KHUHIRUH DOO SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH SODFHG LQWR HLWKHU DQ XQGHU \HDU ROG JURXS RU D \HDU ROG DQG RYHU JURXS %RWK JURXSV ZHUH DQDO\]HG IRU YDULDWLRQ LQ VFRUHV DFFRUGLQJ WR W\SH )RU WKH JURXS XQGHU \HDUV ROG UHVXOWV VKRZHG VXEMHFWV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU 3 f WKDQ VXEn MHFWV DW 6DQWD )H RQ DOO VXEVFDOHV DQG RQ WRWDO %RDUG VFRUH 0HGLFDO VFRUH 3V\FKLDWULF VFRUH DQG WRWDO %RDUG VFRUH ZHUH DOVR VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR W\SH IRU DOO VXEMHFWV XQGHU \HDUV 7KH 6FKHIIH 0HWKRG RI PXOWLSOH FRPSDULVRQV KRZHYHU IRXQG QR GLIIHUHQFHV VLJQLILFDQW DW OHYHOf EHWZHHQ DQ\ SDLU RI WKH 0%7, W\SH FODVVLILFDWLRQV RU EHWZHHQ DQ\ VLQJOH RU GRXEOH SDLU RI 0%7, SUHIHUHQFHV ,QWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ VFKRRO DQG W\SH ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO 6RXUFHV RI YDULDWLRQ IRU DOO VXEMHFWV XQGHU \HDUV DUH VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH 7$%/( ())(&7 2) 7<3( 21 67$7( %2$5' 6&25(6 $// 68%-(&76 81'(5 9DULDEOH GI ) 3 0HGLFDO 6FRUH 6XUJLFDO 6FRUH 3HGLDWULF 6FRUH 2EVWHWULF 6FRUH 3V\FKLDWULF 6FRUH 7RWDO 6FRUH

PAGE 51

)RU WKH JURXS \HDUV DQG ROGHU RQO\ 3V\FKLDWULF VFRUHV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU 3 f DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD WKDQ DW 6DQWD )H 8QOLNH WKH JURXS XQGHU \HDUV W\SH ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR 3HGLDWULF VFRUH 1R RWKHU VXEVFDOH VFRUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO IRU WKH JURXS DQG RYHU $JDLQ WKHUH ZHUH QR VLJn QLILFDQW 3 f GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ DQ\ SDLU RI WKH 0%7, W\SH FODVVLILFDWLRQV RU EHWZHHQ DQ\ VLQJOH RU GRXEOH SDLU RI 0%7, SUHIHUn HQFHV 7KHUH ZHUH LQVXIILFLHQW VXEMHFWV LQ WKH VDPSOH WR WHVW IRU LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ VFKRRO DQG W\SH 6RXUFHV RI YDULDWLRQ IRU DOO VXEMHFWV \HDUV DQG RYHU DUH VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH 7$%/( ())(&7 2) 7<3( 21 67$7( %2$5' 6&25(6 $1' 29(5 $// 68%-(&76 9DULDEOH GI ) 3 0HGLFDO 6FRUH 6XUJLFDO 6FRUH 3HGLDWULF 6FRUH 2EVWHWULF 6FRUH 3V\FKLDWULF 6FRUH 7RWDO 6FRUH &RQVLGHUDWLRQ RI $JH DQG 5DFH 6XEMHFWV ZHUH DOVR JURXSHG E\ UDFH DQG DJH 'XH WR VPDOO VDPSOH VL]H EODFNV ZHUH QRW DQDO\]HG VHSDUDWHO\ n $QDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH VKRZHG ZKLWHV XQGHU \HDUV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD VFRUHG KLJKHU 3 f WKDQ ZKLWHV RI D VLPLODU DJH DW 6DQWD )H RQ DOO VXEVFDOHV DQG RQ

PAGE 52

WRWDO %RDUG VFRUH 0HGLFDO VFRUH 6XUJLFDO VFRUH 2EVWHWULF VFRUH 3V\FKLDWULF VFRUH DQG WRWDO %RDUG VFRUH ZHUH DOO VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR W\SH $JDLQ WKHUH ZHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW 3 f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n GXFHG QR UHVXOWV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO 6RXUFHV RI YDULDQFH IRU WKLV JURXS DUH VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH 6XEMHFWV ZKR SDVVHG %RDUGV ZHUH FRPSDUHG E\ DJH DQG UDFH ZLWK VXEMHFWV ZKR GLG QRW SDVV %RDUGV $ VFRUHRI RQ HDFK VXEVFDOH LV FRQVLGHUHG SDVVLQJ LQ PRVW VWDWHV LQFOXGLQJ )ORULGDf DQG ZDV XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH SDVVIDLO LQ WKLV VWXG\

PAGE 53

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

PAGE 54

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n SUHWDWLRQ RI WKH GDWD

PAGE 55

&+$37(5 9 6800$5< &21&/86,216 $1' 5(&200(1'$7,216 6XPPDU\ 3XUSRVH RI 6WXG\ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR WHVW WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WKHUH H[LVWV D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ -XQJLDQ SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH DQG SHUIRUn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n IRUPDQFH RQ WKH 0%7, DQG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV F

PAGE 56

7KH 3DUWLFLSDQWV 7KUHH KXQGUHG DQG WZHOYH JUDGXDWHV IURP WZR VFKRROV ZHUH LQYROYHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KLV WRWDO LQFOXGHV DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH 6DQWD )H &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHf JUDGXDWHV DQG EDFFDODXUHDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGDf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n SUHIn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

PAGE 57

EDFFDODXUHDWH JUDGXDWHV WKDQ IRU DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV 0RUH VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH IROORZLQJ VHYHQ QXOO K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH WHVWHG 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUn PDQFH RQ 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUn IRUPDQFH RQ WKH VXEVFDOHV RI 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDn WLRQ DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH 7KHUH LV QR RQH W\SH ZKLFK SHUIRUPV FRQVLVWHQWO\ KLJKHU RQ WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ 7KHUH LV QR RQH W\SH ZKLFK SHUIRUPV FRQVLVWHQWO\ KLJKHU RQ WKH VXEVFDOHV RI WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPn LQDWLRQ 7KHUH LV QR RQH W\SH ZKLFK SHUIRUPV FRQVLVWHQWO\ ORZHU RQ WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ 7KHUH LV QR RQH W\SH ZKLFK SHUIRUPV FRQVLVWHQWO\ ORZHU RQ WKH VXEVFDOHV RI WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPn LQDWLRQ 3HUIRUPDQFH E\ W\SH GRHV QRW GLIIHU EHWZHHQ $VVRFLDWH 'HJUHH DQG %DFFDODXUHDWH 'HJUHH JUDGXDWHV 1R K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH PDGH FRQFHUQLQJ UDFH DJH RU VH[ EHFDXVH RI WKH VPDOO QXPEHU RI JUDGXDWHV LQ HDFK JURXS EXW WKH GDWD RQ UDFH DJH DQG VH[ ZHUH WDEXODWHG DQG XVHG WR FKHFN IRU FRQIRXQGLQJ YDULDEOHV 7KHUH ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH EODFNV LQ WKH 6DQWD )H SRSXODWLRQ 7KH 6DQWD )H SRSXODWLRQ ZDV ROGHU RQ WKH DYHUDJH DQG PRUH YDULDEOH ZLWK UHVSHFW WR DJH WKDQ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD SRSXODWLRQ 7KH &KL 6TXDUH WHVW RI LQGHSHQGHQFH ZDV XVHG WR FRPSDUH WKH WZR

PAGE 58

SRSXODWLRQV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR GLVWULEXWLRQ RI W\SH 7KHUH ZHUH VLJQLILn FDQWO\ PRUH (6)W\SHV LQ WKH 6DQWD )H SRSXODWLRQ 2WKHUZLVH WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI W\SHV LQ WKH WZR SRSXODWLRQV DSSHDUHG WR EH WKH VDPH 8VLQJ D WZRIDFWRU $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH DQG D OHYHO RI VLJn QLILFDQFH WKHUH ZDV QR GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR SRSXODWLRQV RQ IRXU RI ILYH VXEVFDOH VFRUHV 7KHUH ZDV D GLIIHUHQFH RQ 3V\FKLDWULF VFRUH ZLWK 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD JUDGXDWHV KDYLQJ WKH KLJKHVW PHDQ $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH ZDV XVHG WR WHVW IRU LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ VFKRRO DQG W\SH 7KHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW 3 f LQWHUDFWLRQ &RQn VHTXHQWO\ WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW SHUIRUPDQFH E\ W\SH ZRXOG QRW GLIIHU EHWZHHQ DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH DQG EDFFDODXUHDWH GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV ZDV QRW UHMHFWHG $Q ) YDOXH VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO ZDV REWDLQHG IRU 0%7, W\SH RQ WKH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RI WRWDO %RDUG VFRUHV 7KH K\SRWKHn VLV RI QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUG DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH ZDV UHMHFWHG 6LJQLILFDQW ) YDOXHV 3 f IRU W\SH ZHUH REWDLQHG IRU 0HGLFDO VFRUHV 3HGLDWULF VFRUHV 2EVWHWULF VFRUHV DQG 3V\FKLDWULF VFRUHV 7KHUHIRUH WKH K\SRWKHVLV RI QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ VXEVFDOHV DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO W\SH FRXOG DOVR EH UHMHFWHG 1R UHODWLRQVKLS VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO FRXOG EH IRXQG EHn WZHHQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH 6XUJLFDO VXEVFDOH DQG W\SH 7KH 6FKHIIH 0HWKRG RI PXOWLSOH FRPSDULVRQ ZDV XVHG WR PDNH DOO SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV JHQHUDWHG E\ FODVVLI\LQJ VXEMHFWV DFFRUGLQJ WR RQH WZR DQG IRXU 0%7, SUHIHUHQFHV $OO SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV IHOO VKRUW RI VLJQLILFDQFH DW WKH OHYHO 7KH 0HGLDQ 7HVW ZDV DOVR XVHG WR FRPSDUH DOO 0%7, W\SHV RQ HDFK RI WKH ILYH VXEVFDOHV $JDLQ

PAGE 59

GLIIHUHQFHV IHOO VKRUW RI VLJQLILFDQFH %DVHG RQ WKH 6FKHIIH 0HWKRG RI PXOWLSOH FRPSDULVRQV DQG RQ WKH 0HGLDQ 7HVW LW ZDV QRW SRVVLEOH WR LGHQWLI\ W\SHV ZKLFK SHUIRUP FRQVLVWHQWO\ KLJKHU RU ORZHU WKDQ RWKHU W\SHV RQ %RDUGV RU RQ VXEVFDOHV RI %RDUGV WKHUHIRUH K\SRWKHn VHV WKUHH WKURXJK VL[ ZHUH QRW UHMHFWHG $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH SURFHHGLQJV ZHUH GRQH XQGHU VHYHUDO FRQGLn WLRQV ZKLWHV RQO\ ZKLWHV XQGHU ZKLWHV RYHU DOO VXEMHFWV XQGHU DQG DOO VXEMHFWV RYHU $QDO\VLV XQGHU WKHVH FRQGLWLRQV VXSSRUWHG UHMHFWLRQ RI WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WKHUH LV QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ %RDUGV RU RQ VXEVFDOHV RI %RDUGV DQG SV\FKRn ORJLFDO W\SH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD VXEMHFWV XQGHU \HDUV ROG VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU 3 f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

PAGE 60

6FRUHV GLIIHU E\ VFKRRO RQ WKH 3V\FKLDWULF VXEVFDOH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD JUDGXDWHV KDYH KLJKHU VFRUHV WKDQ 6DQWD )H JUDGXDWHV 7KHUH LV QR HYLGHQFH RI LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ W\SH DQG VFKRRO 3HUIRUPDQFH E\ W\SH GRHV QRW GLIIHU EHWZHHQ WKH DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH DQG EDFFDODXUHDWH GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV 7KHUH DUH IHZHU VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV RQ %RDUG VFRUHV ZKHQ WKH $QDO\VLV LV UHVWULFWHG WR ZKLWHV RQO\ %ODFN SDUWLFLSDQWV RI DOO DJHV WHQG WR IDLO PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ ZKLWHV
PAGE 61

DUH OLNHO\ WR VFRUH KLJK DQG ZKLFK W\SHV DUH OLNHO\ WR VFRUH ORZ ,QGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ W\SHV DUH SUREDEO\ VOLJKW DQG IDOO VKRUW RI VLJQLILFDQFH HYHQ WKRXJK WKH DJJUHJDWH RI GLIIHUHQFHV FDQ EH VKRZQ WR EH VLJQLILFDQW 'LYLGLQJ VDPSOHV DFFRUGLQJ WR W\SH FODVVLILFDn WLRQV RU VLQJOH DQG GRXEOH W\SH SUHIHUHQFHV UHVXOWHG LQ VPDOO VDPSOH VL]HV DQG UHVWULFWHG VWDWLVWLFDO WUHDWPHQW ,Q WKHRU\ ,1 W\SHV VKRXOG VFRUH KLJKHU WKDQ (6 W\SHV RQ PHDVXUHV RI DSWLWXGH DQG DFKLHYHPHQW )DLOXUH WR GHWHFW D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUn HQFH EHWZHHQ WKHVH WZR W\SH FDWHJRULHV PD\ EH GXH WR LQVXIILFLHQW VXEn MHFWV LQ HDFK FDWHJRU\ 6LQFH %RDUGV WHVW DSSOLFDWLRQ RI NQRZOHGJH LW LV DOVR SRVVLEOH WKDW ,1 W\SHV KDYH QR UHDO DGYDQWDJH RYHU (6 W\SHV 6FRUHV GLIIHU E\ VFKRRO RQ WKH 3V\FKLDWULF VXEVFDOH 7KLV UHVXOW SUREDEO\ UHIOHFWV D GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO SURJUDPV RI WKH WZR VFKRROV 7KHUH LV QR HYLGHQFH RI LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ W\SH DQG VFKRRO ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV SHUIRUPDQFH E\ W\SH GRHV QRW GLIIHU EHWZHHQ WKH DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH DQG EDFFDODXUHDWH GHJUHH JUDGXDWHV 7KLV PLJKW EH H[SODLQHG E\ WKH VWDELOLW\ RI W\SH 7KDW LV SUHIHUHQFHV DUH QRW HDVLO\ DIIHFWHG E\ H[WHUQDO FRQGLWLRQV $QRWKHU SRVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQ LV WKDW QHLWKHU VFKRRO XVHV W\SH WR LGHQWLI\ OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV DQG WR SODQ SURJUDPV DFFRUGLQJO\ %ODFN SDUWLFLSDQWV RI DOO DJHV WHQG WR IDLO %RDUGV PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ ZKLWHV 3HUKDSV WKLV UHSUHVHQWV D FXOWXUDO ELDV RI %RDUGV ,W FRXOG DOVR UHIOHFW D VHOHFWLRQ ELDV 7KDW LV D WUHQG LQ UHFHQW \HDUV WR SURYLGH HGXFDWLRQDO RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU PLQRULWLHV PD\ KDYH FDXVHG HGXFDn WLRQDOO\ GLVDGYDQWDJHG EODFNV WR EH LQFOXGHG ZLWK EHWWHU SUHSDUHG ZKLWHV 7KHUH DUH IHZHU VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV RQ %RDUG VFRUHV ZKHQ WKH

PAGE 62

DQDO\VLV LV UHVWULFWHG WR ZKLWHV RQO\ 6LQFH EODFNV WHQG WR IDLO PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ ZKLWHV DQG VLQFH EODFNV DUH SUHGRPLQDQWO\ 6W\SHV LW ZRXOG DSSHDU WKDW RQH RI WKH YDULDEOHV SURGXFLQJ D GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH DJJUHJDWH PD\ ZHOO EH WKH 6IDFWRU
PAGE 63

$ VWXG\ FRPSDULQJ W\SHV RI EODFNV ZKR SDVVHG %RDUGV ZLWK W\SHV RI EODFNV ZKR IDLOHG %RDUGV EHIRUH GHVHJn UHJDWLRQ ZRXOG EH XVHIXO 0RUH VSHFLILF VWXG\ RI WKH 6XUJLFDO VFRUHV LV QHHGHG WR LGHQWLI\ ZK\ W\SH SHUIRUPDQFH GLIIHUV KHUH DQG QRW LQ WKH RWKHU DUHDV *UDGXDWHV IURP D ZLGH JHRJUDSKLFDO DUHD VKRXOG EH VWXGLHG WR HOLPLQDWH UHJLRQDO LQIOXHQFHV (GXFDWLRQ ,I LW LV GHVLUDEOH WR LPSURYH WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI VHOHFWHG W\SHV WKH OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV RI WKRVH W\SHV VKRXOG EH LGHQWLILHG DQG UHLQIRUFHG ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ LV QHHGHG WR GLVFRYHU ZKLFK W\SHV DPRQJ EODFNV IDLO %RDUGV PRVW RIWHQ ,I LQ IDFW WKH HIIHFW RI W\SH LV PRUH SURQRXQFHG IRU WKH \RXQJHU JURXS XQGHU f WKHQ OHDUQLQJ SURJUDPV VKRXOG EH GHYHORSHG GLIIHUHQWO\ IRU WKH \RXQJHU DQG IRU WKH ROGHU DJH JURXSV WR IDFLOLWDWH OHDUQLQJ IRU ERWK JURXSV ,I LW LV GHVLUDEOH WR GLIIHUHQWLDWH EDFFDODXUHDWH SHUIRUPDQFH IURP DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH SHUIRUPDQFH ERWK 3V\FKLDWULF LQVWUXFWLRQDO SURJUDPV VKRXOG EH HYDOXDWHG

PAGE 64

$33(1',; $ &+$5$&7(5,67,&6 2) 0<(56%5,**6 7<3(6

PAGE 65

7$%/( &+$5$&7(5,67,&6 2) 0<(56%5,**6 3(5621$/,7< 7<3(6 6HULRXV TXLHW HDUQV KLV VXFFHVV E\ HDUQHVW FRQFHQWUDWLRQ DQG XQn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r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

PAGE 66

(673 (6)3 0DWWHURIIDFW GRHVQnW ZRUU\ RU 2XWJRLQJ HDV\JRLQJ XQFULWLFDO KXUU\ DOZD\V KDV D JRRG WLPH IULHQGO\ YHU\ IRQG RI D JRRG WLPH /LNHV PHFKDQLFDO WKLQJV FDUV DQG (QMR\V VSRUWV DQG PDNLQJ WKLQJV VSRUWV ZLWK IULHQGV RQ WKH VLGH UHVWOHVV LI KH KDV WR VLW VWLOO $ OLWWOH EOXQW DQG LQVHQVLWLYH .QRZV ZKDWnV KDSSHQLQJ DQG MRLQV &DQ WDNH VFKRRO RU OHDYH LW LQ KHOSIXOO\ /LWHUDOPLQGHG :RQnW ERWKHU WR IROORZ D ZRUG\ WULHV WR UHPHPEHU UDWKHU WKDQ WR H[SODQDWLRQ EXW FRPHV DOLYH ZKHQ UHDVRQ LV HDVLO\ FRQIXVHG E\ WKHUH LV VRPHWKLQJ UHDO WR EH WKHRU\ +DV JRRG FRPPRQ VHQVH ZRUNHG KDQGOHG RU WDNHQ DSDUW DQG SUDFWLFDO DELOLW\ EXW LV QRW &DQ GR PDWK DQG WHFKQLFDO VWXII DW DOO LQWHUHVWHG LQ VWXG\ IRU ZKHQ KH VHHV KH ZLOO QHHG LW LWV RZQ VDNH (67(6)3UDFWLFDO UHDOLVWLF PDWWHU :DUPKHDUWHG WDONDWLYH SRSXODU RIIDFW ZLWK D QDWXUDO KHDG IRU FRQVFLHQWLRXV LQWHUHVWHG LQ HYHU\n EXVLQHVV /LNHV WKH PHFKDQLFV RQH D ERUQ FRRSHUDWRU DQG DFWLYH RI WKLQJV 1RW LQWHUHVWHG LQ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHU +DV QR FDSDFLW\ VXEMHFWV WKDW KH VHHV QR DFWXDO IRU DQDO\VLV RU DEVWUDFW WKLQNLQJ XVH IRU EXW FDQ DSSO\ KLPVHOI DQG VR KDV WURXEOH ZLWK WHFKQLFDO ZKHQ QHFHVVDU\ ,V JRRG DW VXEMHFWV EXW ZRUNV KDUG WR PDVWHU RUJDQL]LQJ DQG UXQQLQJ VFKRRO WKH IDFWV LQ D OHVVRQ DQG ZLQ DSn DFWLYLWLHV EXW VRPHWLPHV UXEV SHRSOH WKH ZURQJ ZD\ E\ LJQRULQJ WKHLU IHHOLQJV DQG YLHZSRLQWV SURYDO :RUNV EHVW ZLWK SOHQW\ RI SUDLVH DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW $OZD\V GRLQJ VRPHWKLQJ QLFH IRU VRPHRQH SHRSOH WKH ZURQJ ZD\ E\ LJQRULQJ WKHLU IHHOLQJV DQG YLHZSRLQWV LQ D SUDFWLFDO ZD\

PAGE 67

,1),17*LIWHG DQG RULJLQDO VWXGHQW ZKR +DV D YHU\ RULJLQDO PLQG DQG D VXFFHHGV WKURXJK FRPELQDWLRQ RI JUHDW DPRXQW RI GULYH ZKLFK KH LQWHOOLJHQFH SHUVHYHUDQFH DQG XVHV RQO\ ZKHQ LW SOHDVHV KLP GHVLUH WR SOHDVH 3XWV KLV EHVW ,Q ILHOGV ZKLFK DSSHDO WR KLV HIIRUWV LQWR KLV ZRUN EHFDXVH KH LPDJLQDWLRQ KH KDV D ILQH SRZHU ZRXOGQnW WKLQN RI GRLQJ OHVV WKDQ WR RUJDQL]H D MRE RU SLHFH RI KLV EHVW 4XLHW FRQVFLHQWLRXV ZRUN DQG FDUU\ LW WKURXJK ZLWK RU FRQVLGHUDWH RI RWKHUV ZLGHO\ UHn ZLWKRXW WKH KHOS RI RWKHUV +H VSHFWHG LI QRW SRSXODU EXW VXIn LV DOZD\V VFHSWLFDO FULWLFDO IHUV VRFLDOO\ IURP XQZLOOLQJQHVV DQG LQGHSHQGHQW JHQHUDOO\ WR FRPSURPLVH ZKHUH D SULQFLSOH GHWHUPLQHG DQG RIWHQ VWXEERUQ RU FRQYLFWLRQ LV LQYROYHG &DQ QHYHU EH GULYHQ VHOGRP OHG ,1)3 ,173 3DUWLFXODUO\ HQWKXVLDVWLF DERXW 4XLHW UHVHUYHG EULOOLDQW LQ ERRNV UHDGV RU WHOOV WKH SDUWV H[DPV HVSHFLDOO\ LQ WKHRUHWLFDO KH OLNHV EHVW WR KLV IULHQGV ,Qn RU VFLHQWLILF VXEMHFWV /RJLFDO WHUHVWHG DQG UHVSRQVLYH LQ FODVV WR WKH SRLQW RI KDLUVSOLWWLQJ DOZD\V DWWHQWLYH DQG TXLFN WR VHH +DV QR FDSDFLW\ IRU VPDOO WDON ZKDW WKH WHDFKHU LV OHDGLQJ XS WR DQG LV XQFRPIRUWDEOH DW SDUWLHV +DV D ZDUP IULHQGO\ SHUVRQDOLW\ 3ULPDULO\ LQWHUHVWHG LQ KLV EXW LV QRW VRFLDEOH MXVW IRU WKH VWXGLHV DQG ZRXOGQnW FDUH WR EH VDNH RI VRFLDELOLW\ DQG VHOGRP SUHVLGHQW RI KLV FODVV /LNHG E\ SXWV KLV PLQG RQ KLV SRVVHVVLRQV KLV WHDFKHUV IRU KLV VFKRODUVKLS RU SK\VLFDO VXUURXQGLQJV DQG E\ WKH IHZ IHOORZVWXGHQWV ZKR JHW WR NQRZ KLP IRU KLPVHOI

PAGE 68

(1)3 (173 :DUPO\ HQWKXVLDVWLF KLJKVSLULWHG 4XLFN LQJHQLRXV JLIWHG LQ PDQ\ LQJHQLRXV LPDJLQDWLYH FDQ GR DOn OLQHV OLYHO\ DQG VWLPXODWLQJ FRPn PRVW DQ\WKLQJ WKDW LQWHUHVWV KLP SDQ\ DOHUW DQG RXWVSRNHQ DUJXHV 4XLFN ZLWK D VROXWLRQ IRU DQ\ GLIILn IRU IXQ RQ HLWKHU VLGH RI DQ\ TXHVn FXOW\ DQG YHU\ UHDG\ WR KHOS SHRSOH WLRQ 5HVRXUFHIXO LQ VROYLQJ QHZ ZLWK D SUREOHP RQ WKHLU KDQGV 2In DQG FKDOOHQJLQJ SUREOHPV EXW WHQGV WHQ UHOLHV RQ KLV VSXURIWKHPRPHQW WR QHJOHFW URXWLQH DVVLJQPHQWV DV DELOLW\ WR LPSURYLVH LQVWHDG RI SUHn D ERULQJ ZDVWH RI WLPH 7XUQV WR SDULQJ KLV ZRUN LQ DGYDQFH &DQ RQH QHZ LQWHUHVW DIWHU DQRWKHU XVXDOO\ WDON KLV ZD\ RXW RI DQ\ MDP &DQ DOZD\V ILQG H[FHOOHQW UHDVRQV ZLWK FKDUP DQG HDVH IRU ZKDWHYHU KH ZDQWV (1)(175HVSRQVLYH DQG UHVSRQVLEOH )HHOV D +HDUW\ IUDQN DEOH LQ VWXGLHV DQG UHDO FRQFHUQ IRU ZKDW RWKHUV WKLQN D OHDGHU LQ DFWLYLWLHV 3DUWLFXn DQG ZDQW DQG WULHV DOZD\V WR KDQGOH ODUO\ JRRG LQ DQ\WKLQJ UHTXLULQJ WKLQJV ZLWK GXH UHJDUG IRU WKH RWKHU UHDVRQLQJ DQG LQWHOOLJHQW WDON IHOORZnV IHHOLQJV DQG GHVLUHV &DQ OLNH GHEDWLQJ RU SXEOLF VSHDNLQJ OHDG D JURXS GLVFXVVLRQ RU SUHVHQW D :HOOLQIRUPHG DQG NHHSV DGGLQJ WR SURSRVDO ZLWK HDVH DQG WDFW 6RFLDn KLV IXQG RI NQRZOHGJH f 0D\ EH D EOH SRSXODU DFWLYH LQ VFKRRO DIn ELW WRR SRVLWLYH LQ PDWWHUV ZKHUH IDLUV EXW SXWV WLPH HQRXJK RQ KLV KLV H[SHULHQFH KDV QRW \HW FDXJKW OHVVRQV WR GR JRRG ZRUN XS ZLWK KLV VHOIFRQILGHQFH r % 0\HUV 7KH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU 0DQXDO 3ULQFHWRQ 1HZ -HUVH\ (GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH f

PAGE 69

7$%/( ())(&76 2) 7+( &20%,1$7,216 2) 3(5&(37,21 $1' -8'*0(17 ,1 ,1 0<(56%5,**6 3(5621$/,7< 7<3(6r 3HRSOH ZKR 6(16,1* 6(16,1* ,178,7,21 ,178,7,21 SUHIHU 7+,1.,1* )((/,1* )((/,1* 7+,1.,1* IRFXV WKHLU )DFWV )DFWV 3RVVLELOLn 3RVVLELOLn DWWHQWLRQ RQ WLHV WLHV DQG KDQGOH ,PSHUVRQDO 3HUVRQDO 3HUVRQDO ,PSHUVRQDO WKHVH ZLWK DQDO\VLV ZDUPWK ZDUPWK DQDO\VLV 7KXV WKH\ 3UDFWLFDO 6RFLDEOH (QWKXVLn /RJLFDO DQG WHQG WR EH DQG PDWWHU DQG DVWLF DQG LQJHQLRXV RIIDFW IULHQGO\ LQVLJKWIXO DQG ILQG 3URGXFWLRQ 6DOHV 5HVHDUFK 5HVHDUFK VFRSH IRU &RQVWUXFn 6HUYLFH 7HDFKLQJ 6FLHQFH WKHLU WLRQ &XVWRPHU 3UHDFKLQJ ,QYHQWLRQ DELOLWLHV $FFRXQWLQJ UHODWLRQV &RXQVHOLQJ 6HFXULWLHV LQ %XVLQHVV :HOIDUH :ULWLQJ DQDO\VLV (FRQRPLFV ZRUN 3V\FKRORJ\ 0DQDJHPHQW /DZ 1XUVLQJ 3V\FKLDWU\ 3DWKRORJ\ 6XUJHU\ *HQHUDO (WF (WF (WF SUDFWLFH (WF r ,% 0\HUV 7KH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU 0DQXDO 3ULQFHWRQ 1HZ -HUVH\ (GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH f S f

PAGE 70

$33(1',; % ',675,%87,21 2) 7<3(6

PAGE 71

7$%/( 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 6$17$ )( :+,7( 0$/(6 <($56 $1' 2/'(5 1 ,671 b ,6)1 b ,1)1 b ,171 b ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (67(6)(1)(171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b 2QH (1)3 PDOH ZDV OHVV WKDQ \HDUV ROG

PAGE 72

7$%/( 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) :+,7( 6$17$ <($56 $1' 2/'(5 1 )( )(0$/(6 ,67,6),1),171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b ,6 73 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (67(6)(1)(171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b

PAGE 73

7$%/( 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) :+,7( 6$17$ )( )(0$/(6 /(66 7+$1 <($56 2/' 1 ,67,6),1),17b 1 b 1 b 1 ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 b 1 b 1 b 1 (673 1 b (6)3 1 b (1)3 1 b (173 1 b (67(6)(1)(17b 1 b 1 b 1

PAGE 74

7$%/( 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 6$17$ )( <($56 $1' 2/'(5 1 %/$&. )(0$/(6 ,67,6),1),171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (67(6)(1)(171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b

PAGE 75

7$%/( 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 6$17$ )( %/$&. )(0$/(6 /(66 7+$1 <($56 2/' 1 ,671 b ,6)1 b ,1)1 b ,171 b ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (67(6)(1)(171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b

PAGE 76

7$%/( 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 81,9(56,7< :+,7( 0$/(6 <($56 $1' 1 2) )/25,'$ 2/'(5 ,67,6),1),171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (67(6)(1)(171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b

PAGE 77

7$%/( 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ :+,7( )(0$/(6 <($56 $1' 2/'(5 1 ,67,6),1),171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (67(6)(1)(173 b 1 b 1 b 1

PAGE 78

7$%/( 7<3( ',675,%87,21 :+,7( )(0$/(6 2) 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ /(66 7+$1 <($56 2/' 1 ,67,6),1),171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b ,6 73 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 b 1 b 1 nb 1 b (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (67(6)(1)(171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b

PAGE 79

7$%/( 7<3( ',675,%87,21 2) 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ %/$&. )(0$/(6 29(5 <($56 2/' 1 ,67,6),1),171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b ,673 ,6)3 ,1)3 ,173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (673 (6)3 (1)3 (173 1 b 1 b 1 b 1 b (67(6)(1)(171 b 1 b 1 b 1 b 2QH ,67IHPDOH ZDV OHVV WKDQ \HDUV ROG

PAGE 80

$33(1',; & %2$5' 6&25(6 &203$5(' $&&25',1* 72 (O $1' 61 35()(5(1&(6

PAGE 81

7$%/( &203$5,621 2) 727$/ $1' 68%6&$/( 0($16 %< 0%7, 48$'5$176 6FRUH ,6 Q f ,1 Q f (6 Q f (1 Q f 0HGLFDO 6XUJLFDO 3HGLDWULF 2EVWHWULF 3V\FKLDWULF 7RWDO

PAGE 82

7$%/( 1,1(7<),9( 3(5&(17 &21),'(1&( ,17(59$/6 )25 ',))(5(1&(6 ,1 0($16 &RPSDULVRQ 0HGLFDO 6XUJLFDO 3HGLDWULF 2EVWHWULF 3V\FKLDWULF 7RWDO ,6,1 ,6(6 s ,6(1 s ,1(6 ,1(1 A (6(1 M /2

PAGE 83

%,%/,2*5$3+<

PAGE 84

%,%/,2*5$3+< %DFNPDQ 0DUJDUHW ( DQG 6WHLQGOHU )UDQFHV 0 /HWnV ([DPLQH 3UHGLFWLRQ RI $FKLHYHPHQW LQ D &ROOHJLDWH 1XUVLQJ 3URJUDP DQG 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQV 1XUVLQJ 2XWORRN 9RO 1R -XO\ f S %DOGZLQ -HDQ 3 0RZEUD\ -HDQ DQG 7D\ORU 5D\PRQG )DFWRUV ,QIOXHQFLQJ 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ 6WDWH %RDUG 7HVW 3RRO ([DPLQDWLRQV 1XUVLQJ 5HVHDUFK 9RO 1R 0DUFK$SULO f SS %UDQGW (GQD 0DH +DVWLH %HWWLPDH DQG 6FKXPDQQ 'HORUHV 3UHn GLFWLQJ 6XFFHVV RQ 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQV 1XUVLQJ 5HVHDUFK 9RO 1R :LQWHU f SS %XURV 2. (GLWRU 7KH 6L[WK 0HQWDO 0HDVXUHPHQW 1RYHPEHU @ 0XOWLOLWKHGf

PAGE 85

0F&DXOOH\ 0DU\ + 7KH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU DQG WKH 7HDFKLQJ /HDUQLQJ 3URFHVV 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO 0HHWLQJ $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ &KLFDJR ,OOLQRLV >$SULO @ 0LPHRJUDSKHGf 0F&DXOOH\ 0DU\ + 7\SH DQG (GXFDWLRQ 'UDIW UHSRUW RI D VHULHV RI SDSHUV SUHSDUHG WR GHVFULEH WKH 0%7, DQG LWV XVHV 7\SRORJ\ /DERUDWRU\ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD *DLQHVYLOOH )ORULGD >1RYHPEHU @ 0XOWLOLWKHGf 0F&DXOOH\ 0DU\ + 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD &RXQVHOLQJ 6WXG\ $ ILQDO UHSRUW IURP &RPPLWWHH LW 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD *DLQHVYLOOH )ORULGD >0D\ @ 0XOWLOLWKHGf 0LOOHU &DURO )HOGKXVHQ -RKQ ) DQG $VKHU :LOOLDP 7KH 3UHn GLFWLRQ RI 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ 6FRUHV RI *UDGXDWHV RI DQ $VVRn FLDWH 'HJUHH 3URJUDP 1XUVLQJ 5HVHDUFK 9RO 1R 1RYHPEHU 'HFHPEHU f SS 0\HUV ,% ,QWURGXFWLRQ WR 7\SH 6ZDUWKPRUH 3HQQV\OYDQLD %\ WKH $XWKRU 0\HUV ,% 7KH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU 0DQXDO 3ULQFHWRQ 1HZ -HUVH\ (GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH 1DWLRQDO /HDJXH IRU 1XUVLQJ 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ 31* DQG WKH 6WDWH %RDUG ([DPLQDWLRQ 1XUVLQJ 2XWORRN 9RO 1R -XQH f SS 1DWLRQDO /HDJXH IRU 1XUVLQJ 7KH 5HODWLRQVKLS RI 6WDWH %RDUGV DQG $FKLHYHPHQW 7HVW 3HUIRUPDQFH 1XUVLQJ 2XWORRN 9RO 1R $XJXVW f S 1LFKROV 5REHUW & DQG +ROODQG -RKQ / 3UHGLFWLRQ RI WKH )LUVW
PAGE 86

6PLWK $OEHUW $ 1HZ 6WUDWHJ\ IRU ,PSURYLQJ &ROOHJH 7HDFKLQJ &UHDWLYH 1RWHERRN ,QWHUQDWLRQDO IRU 3UHVLGHQWV 9RO 1R -XQH f 6PLWK $OEHUW DQG ,UH\ 5LFKDUG 3HUVRQDOLW\ 9DULDEOHV DQG WKH ,PSURYHPHQW RI &ROOHJH 7HDFKLQJ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO 0HHWLQJ $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ &KLFDJR ,OOLQRLV >$SULO @ 0LPHRJUDSKHGf 6WULHNHU /DZUHQFH 6FKLIIPDQ +DUROG DQG 5RVV -RKQ 3UHn GLFWLRQ RI &ROOHJH 3HUIRUPDQFH ZLWK WKH 0\HUV%ULJJV 7\SH ,QGLFDWRU (GXFDWLRQDO DQG 3V\FKRORJLFDO 0HDVXUHPHQW 9RO 1R :LQWHU f SS YRQ )UDQ] 0DULD/RXLVH DQG +LOOPDQ -DPHV /HFWXUHV RQ -XQJnV 7\SRORJ\ 1HZ
PAGE 87

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ 'DYLG 'HDQ :LOOLDPV ZDV ERUQ LQ 2KLR +H UHFHLYHG D %DFKHORU RI 6FLHQFH LQ 1XUVLQJ GHJUHH IURP 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ DQG ZRUNHG DV D VWDII QXUVH LQ SHGLDWULFV ,Q DIWHU UHFHLYLQJ D 0DVWHU RI 1XUVLQJ GHJUHH KH ZRUNHG DV DQ LQVWUXFWRU DQG ODWHU DV DQ DVVLVWDQW SURIHVVRU RI SHGLDWULF QXUVLQJ ,Q KH EHJDQ IXOOWLPH DGYDQFHG VWXG\ LQ HGXFDWLRQ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 0U :LOOLDPV LV FXUUHQWO\ HPSOR\HG DV D JUDGXDWH UHVHDUFK DVVRn FLDWH DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD &ROOHJH RI 1XUVLQJ !

PAGE 88

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ e \ Ln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

PAGE 89

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$