Citation
Psychological needs, personal values, and personality traits of graduate level special education students

Material Information

Title:
Psychological needs, personal values, and personality traits of graduate level special education students
Creator:
Cochrane, Pamela Vortigern
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 112 leaves : ill. ; 28cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Copyrights ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Femininity ( jstor )
Mathematical dependent variables ( jstor )
Nurturance ( jstor )
Personality inventories ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Special education ( jstor )
Standard deviation ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Special Education -- UF
Educational psychology ( lcsh )
Special Education thesis Ph. D
Special education teachers -- Training of -- Florida ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 108-110.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Pamela V. Cochrane.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is presumed in the public domain according to the terms of the Retrospective Dissertation Scanning (RDS) policy, which may be viewed at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007596/00001. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator(ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
025250446 ( ALEPH )
02717790 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS, PERSONAL VALUES,
AND PERSONALITY TRAITS OF
GRADUATE LEVEL SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS










By

PAMELA V. COCHRANE


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













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


An expression of gratitude is extended to the writer's supervisory committee: Myron Cunningham, Ralph Kimbrough. Cary Reichard, and James Whorton. Special appreciation and thanks are extended to the chairman of the committee, William R. Reid, whose assistance and encouragement were essential to the completion of this dissertation.













TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . .. LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . .*.


* 9 S 9 9 9 V


ABSTRACT.


9 . & * 0 9 * * * * * * * *


9 . � 9 * 9


CHAPTER


I. THE PROBLEM . . . . ....

The Purpose . . . . . . .
Delineation of the Research
Objectives. . . . . .
Delimitation . . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . .. II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. .

Summary . .. .... . . .

III. METHODOLOGY . . . . .

Selection of Subjects . . .
Instrumentation . . . . .


. . . . . 1


* 9 * 9 9
* . . 9 9
* . . 9 9
* . . 9 *
* . . 9 9


* S * * 9 * 9
. . . . . . 16
*.. . .9 . . i7

. . . . . . 9 17

* . . . . . 17


The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. . . . . . . . The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study'of


0 18


Values. . . . . . . . . . .
The California Psychological
Inventory . . . . . . . .
Questionnaire . . . . . ... Procedures. . . . . . . ... Research Design . . . . . ...
Independent Variables . ...
Dependent Variables . . ...
Hypotheses. . . . . . ... Statistical Analysis. . . ... Limitations . . . . . . ....


IV. RESULTS . . .. . . . . . . . .


Distributional Characteristics of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..


.9 . & & 20


* 9 9 9
* . 9 9
* 9 9 9
* . . .
. S ~ S

. 9 . .

9 . S 9


�P � 30


9 . . 30


iii


viii








Analysis of Variance. . . ....
Hypothesis 1. . . . . . . ....
Hypothesis 2. . . . . . .....
Hypothesis 3. . . . . . . ....
Hypothesis 4. . . . . . . ....
Hypothesis 5. . . . . . . .
Discriminant Function Analysis . .

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION . ....

Discussion. . . .
Hypothesis 1: Area of Specializ a t i o n . . . . . . . .. . . . .
Hypothesis 2t Degree Level . & * Hypothesis 31 Age. . . . ....
Hypothesis 4: Sex. . . . .
Hypothesis 51 Years of Teaching.
Conclusions and Implications.
Suggestions For Further Research. .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


70

S. 70

74
� � 77
78
. . 80 . . 81 � . 84
* . 86
87


APPENDIX


A. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIABLES OF THE
EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE,
THE ALLPORT-VERNON-LINDZEY STUDY OF
VALUES, AND THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . ...


B. QUESTIONNAIRE REFERENCES. . . .a. . BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . .


106

108 111


. I ~ I ~ ~ I P I I ~












LIST OF TABLES


TABLE Page
1 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS
Variables For the General Adult Sample . . 19
2 Means and Standard Deviations of the
Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values
For a Portion of the Normative Sample. . . 21
3 Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations
Estimated From a Table For Converting CPI
Scores to Standard Scores. . . . . . . . . 23

4 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS
Variables For the Entire Sample. . . . . . 31

5 Means and Standard Deviations of the SV
Variables For the Entire Sample. . . . . . 32
6 Means and Standard Deviations of the CPI
Variables For the Entire Sample. . . . . . 33

7 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of the
Independent Variables For the Entire
Sample . . . . . . . . . . , . a * . 34

8 Means of the EPPS Variables For Area of
Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. � 35

9 Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables
For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 3?

10 Means of the SV Variables For Area of
Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. . 38
11 Standard Deviations of the SV Variables
For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
12 Means of the CPI Variables For Area of
Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. � 39








13 Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables
For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5. . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . 41

14 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS
Variables For Degree Level Groups 1 and 2. 42

15 Means and Standard Deviations of the SV
Variables For Degree Level Groups 1 and 2. 44

16 Means and Standard Deviations of the CPI
Variables For Degree Level Groups 1 and 2. 45

17 Means of the EPPS Variables For Age
Groups 1, 2, and 3 ... .... . . . . . 47

18 Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables
For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 . . * � * * � � 49

19 Means of the SV Variables For Age Groups
1, 2, and 3. * o . . . . . . . . . . , . . 50

20 Standard Deviations of the SV Variables
For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 .. . . . . . . 51
21 Means of the CPI Variables For Age
Groups 1, 2, and 3 . . . . . . . . . . 9 a 52
22 Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables
For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 .. . . , 4 . . 53
23 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS
Variables For Females and Males. . . . . . 54
24 Means and Standard Deviations of the SV
Variables For Females and Males. . . . . . 56

25 Means and Standard Deviations of the CPI
Variables For Females and Males. . . . . . 57
26 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS
Variables Teaching Groups 1 and 2. . . . . 59

27 Means and Standard Deviations of the SV
Variables For Years of Teaching Groups
1 and 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
28 Means and Standard Deviations of the CPI
Variables For Years of Teaching Groups
1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61







29 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients: Area of Specialization. . ... 62 30 Centroids of Groups: Area of Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . 63
31 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients: Degree Level. . . . . . . . . 64 32 Centroids of Groups: Degree Level . . . . 65 33 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients: Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
34 Centroids of Groups: Age . . . . . . . . 66 35 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients: Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
36 Centroids of Groups: Sex. . . . . . . . . 68 37 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients: Years of Teaching . . . . . . 68 38 Centroids of Groups: Years of Teaching.. 69 39 Standard Scores of the EPPS Variables For
the Entire Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
40 Standard Scores of the CPI Variables For
the Entire Sample. . .. . . . . . . . . . 72

41 Means of the SV Variables For the Entire
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74


vii













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


PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS, PERSONAL VALUES,
AND PERSONALITY TRAITS OF
GRADUATE LEVEL SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS By

Pamela V. Cochrane

December, 1975
Chairman: William R. Reid Major Department: Special Education
The primary objective of the study was to generate a general personality profile of people who have chosen special education as a profession. The other objectives were to determine whether or not there are significant differences between the personality characteristics of special educatorsi (a) in specific areas of specialization (mental retardation, emotional disturbance, learning disabilities, blind and partially sighted, and administration), (b) at different levels of graduate training (master's and postmaster's), (c) in different age groups (20-24, 25-29, and over 30), (d) with a different number of years of special education teaching experience (zero years and one or more years), and (e) of both sexes.


viii








The subjects (N=112) were special education graduate students enrolled full-time at two state supported universities in Florida. Three paper-and-pencil personality inventories were completed by the subjects. They were the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS), the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values (SV), and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI).
Analysis of variance was used to determine whether significant differences (p <.05) existed between any of the mean scores of the subjects grouped according to area of specialization, degree level, age, years of teaching experience, and sex, on any of the variable measures of the EPPS, SV, and CPI. Discriminant function analysis was used to determine the relationship of the variables to each other and their contribution to the discrimination between groups.

Based on the results of the analysis, a general personality profile of the subjects was developed. They tend to be seen as poised, spontaneous, and self-confident in personal and social interactions. They possess a strong sense of personal worth and are demanding and aggressive. They have a definite capacity for independent thinking and action, and their achievement is facilitated in settings where autonomy and independence are seen as positive behaviors. They are disbelieving and distrustful in personal and social outlook, and intolerant of other people's








social beliefs and attitudes. At the same time they are not concerned about how others react to them.

There were no significant differences between the personality characteristics of the subjects whose areas of specialization were the education of the emotionally disturbed, the mentally retarded, and the learning disabled. The subjects in the other two areas of specialization (blind and partially sighted and administration) differed significantly, but because of sampling bias, the differences were reported as not valid.

Significant differences were found between the subjects working on master's degrees and those in more advanced training programs. The post-master's group tended to be considerably more domineering, aggressive, and achievement oriented than the master's degree subjects.

There were significant differences found between the subjects in different age groups. The older subjects tended to be less timid in the presence of superiors, more achievement oriented, and more blunt and direct in thinking and action.

Significant differences were also found between the

subjects who had special education teaching experience and those who did not. The subjects with teaching experience were found to have a greater need to follow instructions, to conform to custom and to avoid the unconventional than the subjects with no teaching experience. Significant differences were also found between the male and female subjects.












CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM


Special education as a profession is composed of
many distinct, yet interlocking and interdependent components. It is these components that have contributed to the recognition of special education as a distinct field within the education profession. The types of children served, the methods and materials used to educate the children, student assessment and diagnosis, teacher training, and many other elements can be included within this framework.

These components continue to be defined and developed within the profession through various research and deV
velopment efforts. One component that requires initial definition and clarification is the personality characteristics of people who have chosen special education as a career.5 The relatively scant attention paid to this element is in direct contrast to the extensive study of personality traits of general educators (Biddle & Ellena, 1964; Gage, 1963; Getzels & Jackson, 19631 Jansen, Jensen, & Mylov, 19721 Krugman, 19581 Ryans, 19601 Smith, 1971). It is because of this paucity of research that the author





2


chose to study the personality characteristics of special educators.

The Purpose
Personality characteristics of special educators
relate to many facets of the profession, including career choice, career satisfaction, recruitment, screening, teacher training, and teacher competence (Burrello & Sage, 19711 Garrison & Scott, 19611 Getzels & Jackson, 19631 Gottfried & Jones, 19641 Jones & Gottfried, 19661 Osipow, 19681 Reid, Reid, Whorton, & Reichard, 1972; Rudolff, 19691 White, 1970). The author chose to focus this study on the personality characteristics of special educators as they relate to career choice and screening.

V"The knowledge of personality characteristics of people in specific professions enables other people who are interested in entering that field to compare their own traits with those of people already in the field (Gottfried & Jones, 1964). The identification of these characteristics enables students and those who advise them to make better career decisions based on this information. One goal of this study was to develop a general personality profile of special educators for this purpose.

Differences in the characteristics of people who chose the different areas of specialization within the field were also examined in this study. General personality traits of people who have specialized in the








education of the mentally retarded, the emotionally disturbed, the learning disabled, and the blind and partially sighted, and special education administration were examined. This information could enable students considering special education as a profession to compare their characteristics with those of people who have specialized

in these different areas (Jones, 1966).

Information concerning the traits of special educators could be used to implement other personal data to facilitate the decisions of people whose task it is to admit individuals to the profession, i.e., university admissions committees. In some cases individuals are admitted to a training facility only to be dismissed, or to quit, for reasons that relate directly to their personality characteristics. People whose characteristics differ greatly from the majority of those in the field could be directed toward more appropriate professions (Bower & Greenfield, 1973). It is important to remember, however, that these characteristics should not be used as a sine qua non in special education admission decisions. Results of studies such as this offer general guidelines, and are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.

'There is general agreement among educators that personality traits of teachers directly manifest themselves within the educational context (Bowers & Soar, 19611 Dobson, 1972l Flanders, 19601 Gage, 19631 Scheuer, 19711








Stringer, 19611 Wilk & Edson, 1963). This position is aptly presented by Getzels and Jackson (1963),

The personality of the teacher is a significant variable in the classroom. Indeed,
some would agree it is the most significant
variable. The educational impact of an Icabod Crane or a Mark Hopkins, of a Mr.
Chips or a Socrates, is surely not due
solely to what he knows, or even to what
he does, but in a very real sense to what.
he is. (p. 506)
It is for this reason that it is important during the admission process to screen people who, because of their personality traits, may have a detrimental effect on the students they may teach (Bower & Greenfield, 1973).
It has been stated that it is advisable to use a special screening process when admitting people to the field of special education who wish to teach emotionally disturbed children (Balow, 1966). This implies that this area of specialization attracts an inordinant number of maladjusted individuals, and this study will investigate what is essentially conjecture (Osipow, 1968).


Delineation of the Research
For this study it was assumed that a person who has enrolled in a graduate level training program has, by the act of enrollment, indicated his choice of profession. Upon completion of the program it is probable that the graduate will take a position within the profession. It is also probable, particularly at the doctoral level, that many of the subjects in the study have been employed as





5

special educators prior to their enrollment as graduate students. For this reason, the researcher concluded that graduate students would be representative of the population that is actually employed in the field of special education and would be appropriate subjects.

Within the field of special education there are many areas of specialization. Those areas chosen for inclusion in this study were: (a) the education of the mentally retarded (MR), (b) the education of the emotionally disturbed (ED), (c) the education of children with learning disabilities (LD), (d) the education of the blind and partially sighted (Blind), and (e) special education administration (Admin.).

The subjects were enrolled in programs leading to three different graduate degrees: (a) Master of Education, (b) Specialist of Education, and (c) Doctor of Education or Doctor of Philosophy. Because of the small number of people in the Specialist program, that group of subjects was combined with the Doctoral level subjects to form a Post-Master's level group.
/
Factors that researchers consider influential in

career choice are ability, attitude, interests, personality characteristics, self-concept, and sociological factors (Getzels & Jackson, 1963). Although it has been stated that comprehensive studies including all of these factors are best (Zytowski, 1970), it is also acknowledged that more modest studies may yield promising leads, suggest new








approaches, and add significant knowledge to the larger problem (Jones, 1966).$ From this list of factors, personality characteristics were chosen by the author for study. Specifically, the subjects in the study were asked to respond to three personality inventories, each of which was respectively designed to measure psychological needs, personal values, and personality traits.


ObJectives
The specific objectives of this study were:

1. to generate an initial personality profile of people who have chosen special education as a profession,

2. to determine whether there were any significant differences between the subjects in specific areas of specialization within the field of special education (MR.

ED, LD, Blind, and Admin.),
3. to determine whether there were any significant differences between the subjects at different levels of training (master's, and post-master's),
4. to determine whether there were any significant differences between men and women subjects,
5. to determine whether there were any significant differences between the subjects in different age groups (20-24, 25-29, and 30 and above), and

6. to determine whether there were any significant differences between subjects who have, or have not, taught in special education.








Delimitation

Subjects were special education graduate students enrolled full-time during Summer and Fall Terms, 1975, at two state supported universities in Florida: the University of Florida, in Gainesville, and the Florida State University, in Tallahassee. All students in the departments meeting these criteria were asked to participate in the study, and the number of subjects was determined by the response of the students.

Three paper-and-pencil personality inventories were administered to the subjects. They were the Edwards

Personal Preference Schedule, which measures psychological needs, the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, which

measures personal values, and the California Psychological Inventory, which measures personality traits.

Definition of Terms

Personal Values any characteristic deemed important because of psychological, social, moral, or aesthetic considerations.

Personality Characteristics: the totality of an individual' s characteristics.

Personality Trait: a distinguishing quality of character.

Psychological Needs an urge or motivation that has
been acquired through experience and education in distinction to a primary drive, which arises out of the direct need of the organism.





8


Special Education& the education of exceptional children.
Special Educator: anyone actively employed in, or training for, the special education profession.













CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


Several distinct approaches have been utilized in the study of career choice. The theories that underlie the major approaches areas (a) trait-factor theory, (b) sociological and demographic theory, (c) developmental and self-concept theory, and (d) personality theory (Osipow, 1968). Two of these theories were utilized in this study: trait-factor theory and personality theory.

Trait-factor theory is, in its broadest sense, a
means of proceeding in research and practice. A researcher first identifies some aspect of behavior for study and then devises some way of measuring it in an appropriate group of subjects. He uses the average score of the group as a reference point for the individual scores. The purpose of the process is,
to indicate how far above or below the
average of a defined group an individual
is with respect to the characteristic measured. (Ebel, 1969, p. 640)
Much of the psychological testing movement has grown out of this approach (Osipow, 1968).
Several elements of personality theory have been selected for use in the study of career choice. Among








these are attitudes, values, interests, adjustment,

needs, and personality traits (Getzels & Jackson, 1963; Osipow, 1968). Of these elements, three were chosen by
the author for inclusion in this study: psychological

needs, personal values, and personality traits.

As stated by Osipow (1968)s

A psychological needs conception, along
with the idea of tension reduction through
needs satisfaction, is, in many ways,
ideally suited to explain many aspects of
career behavior. (p. 153)

""The conviction is that a person will choose a career
that he feels will satisfy his particular needs.S- A person who is able to successfully identify his own

needs and match those to a career that provides potential
satisfaction to those needs is more likely to be satisfied with his job than someone who has not considered
his needs when choosing a career.

The theory underlying the personal values approach
is similar to that of the psychological needs approach.

An individual has certain personal values that influence his choice of career and the degree of satisfaction with

the career. Some values that are typically considered
as influential are religious beliefs, prestige, security,

and the role of economic return in life (Osipow, 1968,

Robinson & Shaver, 1973). In as much as a certain career
is consistent with an individual's values, a person will
be satisfied with his choice of vocation.








General psychological theory has been applied to vocational behavior in order to study the personality traits of people in certain professions. Research has shown that:
as with interests, values, and needs, members of a given occupation tend to be more like each other and less like
people not in that occupation on one
or another personality traits measured
in one or another ways. (Zytowski,
1970, p. 76)

Also considered in this approach is the relationship between psychopathology and career choice. It has long been speculated that certain occupations attract more than their share of maladjusted individuals. This speculation has led to much research, but the results have been equivocal. Osipow (1968) states that "in general, no data exist to suggest a specific relationship between psychopathology and career choice" (p. 177).

An early recognition of the importance of identifying specific personality characteristics of teachers was in 1958 (Krugman, 1958). Until this time there was general agreement that there was an "ideal teacher" who could effectively teach all children. The search for this ideal teacher was appreciated as unrealistic when Bernard (1958) and Biber (1958) postulated that certain personality characteristics of teachers could be related to certain variables, such as the age level of the children taught, in order to facilitate more effective screening, training, and placement of teachers.








The personal needs of special education teachers
were studied by Garrison and Scott (1961). They compared the psychological needs of college students preparing to teach in five different areas, (a) lower elementary,
(b) upper elementary, (c) general secondary, (d) nongeneral secondary, and (e) special education. The hypothesis was that the needs of the students would differ according to their area of specialization. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was used to measure the psychological needs of the subjects (N=530). F-tests of the significance of the difference in means for each of the personal needs scores yielded a highly significant difference (at the .01 level of confidence) on the need for Achievement. Significant differences (at the .05 level of confidence) were also found on the need for Nurturance, the need for Order, and the need for Succorance.

The special education students showed a significantly greater need for Achievement than the lower elementary, upper elementary, and nongeneral secondary education students. The home economics students showed a significantly greater need for Order and a lower need for Exhibition than the special education students. Lower and upper elementary and secondary students showed a significantly greater need for Succorance than the special education students. The hypothesis of the study was confirmed for the personal needs for Achievement, Nurturance, Order, and Succorance.








Gottfried and Jones (1964) studied motivational

factors associated with the choice of special education as a career. It was found that the primary reason for entering the field was prior contact with exceptional children. The internalized motives most often given were, (a) a desire to help others, and (b) the challenge of the field. The researchers suggested that if there are specific personal motives for entering special education and if the motives differentiated successful and unsuccessful persons in the field, they could assume importance in the teacher training process.

Jones and Gottfried (1966) studied the relationship

between psychological needs and preferences for teaching different types of exceptional children. Subjects (N=726) were asked to complete the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and to rank order their preferences for teaching each of 12 exceptionalities. Of those students preparing to teach exceptional children, high scores on Affliation were associated with preference to teach delinquent and deaf children. Low scores on this subtest were associated with a preference for teaching speech handicapped children. The students who indicated a preference to teach deaf and blind children had high Exhibition scores, and those who preferred to teach delinquent and partially sighted had low Exhibition scores.
The psychological needs of special education administrators were studied by Burrello and Sage (1971) using the








Behavior Preference Inventory. The main objective of the study was to validate the Inventory. Using the instrument they found significant need variations between men and women, administrators in different age brackets, and administrators in rural and city settings. Further study of the relationships between personality variables and the decision making process of administrators was suggested, as was the need to sensitize administrators to their personal needs and their influence on the decision making process.
Wakefield and Crowl (1974) attempted to formulate
an image of the ideal special education teacher in terms of personality characteristics. Four groups of subjects (N=154) (special education professors, teachers, graduate and undergraduate students) were asked to rank order the personality variables of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule in the order that these traits should be exhibited by a special education teacher. There was a high degree of consistency within and among groups, leading the researchers to conclude that there exists "a highly stable image of the ideal special educator in terms of personality needs" (p. 87). Those needs considered most desirable were Intraception, Nurturance, Endurance, and Achievement. Those considered least important were Exhibition, Heterosexuality, Abasement, and Aggression.

Caskey and Lutz (1975) attempted to identify personal influences and values associated with special education as








a career choice. The subjects were special education students and teachers working in the field. Three response patterns to a questionnaire were reported, (a) those people who chose special education as a career because of prior knowledge of the field, (b) those who chose the career because of personal satisfaction obtained while working in the field, and (c) those whose motives are primarily altruistic.

As one part of a research project Reid, Reid, Whorton, and Reichard (1972) administered the California Psychological Inventory to special education and nonspecial

education college freshmen. This was done as an attempt to improve recruitment and screening procedures. Significant differences between the two groups were found in 10 of the subtests, "all in favor of the special education majors" (p. 130). Significant differences were found in Sense of Well-Being, Responsibility, Socialization, SelfControl, Tolerance, Achievement via Conformance, Achievement via Independence, Intellectual Efficiency, and Psychological Mindedness.

Bower and Greenfield (1973) studied emotional disturbance in the teacher population. They found significant differences between certified teachers and teachers whose certification had been revoked because of emotional disturbance. The revoked group was significantly older at the time of application for credentials, and it was suggested that the revoked group entered education as a


M1MMMMMMMVMMMMMMxMM







career as a second, third, or last choice. The authors noted that there exists,

a remarkable lack of research on prevalence
of emotional disturbance in teachers, how
screening techniques might be employed, and how institutions of higher learning can redirect more effectively and courageously students with high levels of instability
into less emotionally arduous careers.
(p. 60)

Summary

A brief review of the approaches used in the study of career choice that relate directly to this study was first presented. These are trait-factor theory and personality theory. Within the broad approach of personality theory three factors were discussed as they relate to this studys psychological needs, personal values, and personality traits. This was followed by a review of

the studies that were designed to address the question of psychological needs, personal values, and per.4orality traits of special educators.












CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY


The research method used for this study was descriptive. There are two basic goals of this method of research. The first is to systematically describe the characteristics of a given population, and the second is to make comparisons and evaluations (Isaac & Michael, 1971). The researcher attempted to achieve both of these goals in this project.


Selection of Subjects
The subjects were students at two state supported universities in Floridaa The University of Florida in Gainesville, and Florida State University in Tallahassee. The subjects were enrolled in each university as fulltime special education graduate students and were attending classes during Summer and Fall Terms, 1975. An attempt

was made to include as subjects all students who met these criteria.

Instrumentation
Three paper-and-pencil personality inventories were administered to the subjects. These were: (a) the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, (b) the Allport-








Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, and (c) the California Psychological Inventory.

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) was designed to provide measures of 15 normal psychological needs (Edwards, 1959). The variables measured ares Achievement (ach), Deference (def), Order (ord), Exhibition (exh), Autonomy (aut), Affliation (aff), Intraception (int), Succorance (suc), Dominance (dom), Abasement (aba), Nurturance (nur), Change (chg), Endurance (end), Heterosexuality (het), and Aggression (agg) (see Appendix A for a description of the variables).

Statements measuring each of the 15 variables are

paired twice with statements measuring each of the other variables in the EPPS. The respondent is asked to choose which of the two statements is more characteristic of himself. A high score on the measure indicates that the subject has chosen statements representative of that personality variable as being most descriptive of himself. The raw score range for each variable is zero to 28.

Normative data were obtained from two groups of
subjects, 1509 college students and 8963 adults of both sexes who were heads of households. The means and standard deviations of the adult normative sample are presented in Table 1.








TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables
For the General Adult Sample


Standard
Means Deviations
Variable Men Women Men Women Achievement 14.79* 13.58 4.14 3.95 Deference 14.19 14.72* 3.91 3.84 Order 14.69 15.59* 4.87 4.57 Exhibition 12.75* 11.48 3.99 3.88 Autonomy 14.02* 12.10 4.38 4.11 Affiliation 14.51 17.76* 4.32 4.15 Intraception 14.18 15.28* 4.42 4.13 Succorance 10.78 12.86* 4.71 4.55 Dominance 14.50* 10.24 5.27 4.73 Abasement 14.59 16.89* 5.13 4.88 Nurturance 15.67 18.48* 4.97 4.43 Change 13.87 15.99* 4.76 4.73 Endurance 16.97* 16.50 4.90 4.66 Heterosexuality 11.21* 8.12 7.70 6.59 Aggression 13.06* 10.16 4.60 4.37 Consistency Score 11.35 11.59* 1.96 1.83 N 4031 4932

*This mean is significantly larger (at the 1 per cent level) than the corresponding mean for the opposite sex. Source: Edwards, 1959








Split-half reliability coefficients were computed for the 15 measures. The scores of the 1509 normative college students were used to obtain the coefficients, which ranged from .60 to .87. Test-retest reliability coefficients (one week interval, N=89) were reported as ranging from .74 to .88. Intercorrelation of the variables was computed. The intercorrelations were generally low, indicating that the variables being measured are relatively independent.

The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values

The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values (SV) was designed to measure six basic personal values or motivations (Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1970). The variables measured are Theoretical, Economic, Aesthetic, Social, Political, and Religious (see Appendix A for a description of the variables).

The test was designed to measure the relative strength of the variables, with each value measured by 20 questions. A high score on one variable necessarily lowers the scores of the other variables. The scores do not represent an absolute amount of value or motivation connected with a measure, but rather their relative importance to the individual.

The scores on the SV of 5894 college students were used for normative purposes. Standard deviations are presented for a portion of the group in Table 2.








TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values For a Portion of the Normative Sample


3778 College
Students 2489 Males 1289 Females Variable Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Theoretical 39.75 7.27 43.75 7.34 35.75 7.19 Economic 40.33 7.61 42.78 7.92 37.87 7.30 Aesthetic 38.88 8.42 35.09 8.49 42.67 8.34 Social 39.56 7.03 37.09 7.03 42.03 7.02 Political 40.39 6.44 42.94 6.64 37.84 6.23 Religious 41.01 9.31 38.20 9.32 43.81 9.40


Sources Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1970


Measures of reliability show that the internal consistency of the SY is adequate. The mean reliability coefficient, using a split-half reliability measure, is .90. Item analysis shows that each item is positively correlated with the total score for its value, significant at the .01 level of confidence. Correlation among variables is low, indicating that the values measured are relatively discrete.

The California Psychological Inventory
The California Psychological Inventory (CPI) was designed to measure personality traits relevant to the








understanding and prediction of social behavior (Gough, 1969). It was designed for use with normal, socially functioning individuals. The test includes 18 scales which are intended to measure different aspects of interpersonal functioning. The traits measured are Dominance

(Do), Capacity for Status (Cs), Sociability (Sy), Social Presence (Sp), Self-Acceptance (Sa), Sense of Well-Being
(Wb), Responsibility (Re), Socialization (So), SelfControl (Sc), Tolerance (To), Good Impression (Gi), Communality (Cm), Achievement via Conformance (Ac), Achievement via Independence (Ai), Intellectual Efficiency (Ie), Psychological-Mindedness (Py), Flexibility (Fx), and Femininity (Fe) (see Appendix A for a description of the variables).

The CPI scores of over 13,000 subjects were used
for normative purposes. The group included a wide range of ages, socio-economic groups and geographical areas. Raw score means and standard deviations estimated from
a table for converting CPI scores to standard scores, and from the profile sheet for the CPI are presented in Table 3.
Two studies reported on test reliability. One study (N=226) reported correlation (test-retest, one year interval) ranging from .44 to .77. The other study (N=200) reported correlations (test-retest, seven to 21 day intervals) ranging from .49 to .87. Scale intercorrelation indicates that the separate subtests measure separate personality traits as intended.








TABLE 3
Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations
Estimated From a Table For Converting CPI Scores to Standard Scores


Means Standard Deviations Variable Men Women Men Women Dominance 27 27 5 5.5 Capacity for Status 19.3 20 3.6 3.6 Sociability 24.5 24.5 5 4.5 Social Presence 34 34 5.5 6 Self-Acceptance 19.3 20 3.6 3.6 Sense of Well-Being 37.5 37.5 4 4.5 Responsibility 31 32 5 5 Socialization 36.5 39.5 6 5.5 Self-Control 31 32 7.5 7 Tolerance 23 23 4.5 4.5 Good Impression 20 20 6 6 Communality 25.2 25.8 2 2.2 Achievement via
Conformance 27.5 28 4.5 4.5
Achievement via
Independence 18.6 19 4.4 4 Intellectual
Efficiency 39.3 39 4.6 5 Psychological
Mindedness 11 11 2.8 2.8 Flexibility 9 9 3.5 3.5 Femininity 16.3 23 3.6 3.3


Sources Gough, 1969








Questionnaire

A questionnaire was developed by the researcher to

accompany the three personality inventories. The purpose of the questionnaire was to obtain biographical information about the subjects (see Appendix B).


Procedures
The data were collected from July through October, 1975. This period overlapped Summer and Fall Terms at both universities where the subjects were enrolled.

During Summer Term at the University of Florida,

test batteries (composed of the EPPS, SV, CPI, and questionnaire) were distributed to all faculty members of the Department of Special Education teaching classes in which special education graduate students were enrolled. The faculty members were asked to distribute the batteries to the appropriate students, collect them one week later, completed, and return them to the researcher. At Florida State University the test batteries were delivered to a faculty member of the Department of Special Education. Included with each battery was a self-addressed, stamped envelope. The batteries were handed out to the students, who were asked to return them by mail, when completed, to the researcher. A total of 67 batteries were distributed at the University of Florida, and 42 were returned. A total of 23 batteries were handed out at Florida State University, and 10 were returned. The rates of return were 63% and 43% respectively.








At the beginning of Fall Term at the University of Florida the researcher obtained permission from all Special Education faculty members teaching classes in which special education graduate students were enrolled to attend the first class meeting of the term. At this time the research project was briefly described to the subjects and the batteries were distributed. The researcher returned to each class one week later and collected the batteries. Forty-six batteries were handed out, and 39 were returned. This rate of return was 85%.
During Fall Term the researcher administered the

battery to special education graduate students enrolled in three graduate courses at Florida State University. Most students finished the batteries during class time. Twenty-two batteries were handed out, and 21 were completed and returned. This rate of return was 95%.

During the entire period in which data were collected, a total of 113 test batteries were distributed at the University of Florida, and 81 were returned. Forty-five batteries were distributed at Florida State University, and 31 were returned. The rates of return were 72% and

69% respectively.


Research Desivn
Independent Variables

There were five independent variables in the research design. They were, (a) subject's area of specialization,








(b) degree level of subject's graduate program, (c) sex of subject, (d) age of subject, and (e) number of years subject has taught in the field of special education.

Area of specialization. Subjects in this research were grouped according to their area of specialization. There were five areas included. They were, (a) Group 1, Mental Retardation (MR), (b) Group 2, Emotionally Disturbed (ED), (c) Group 3, Learning Disabilities (LD),

(d) Group 4, Blind and Partially Sighted (Blind), and

(e) Group 5, Special Education Administration (Admin.).

Degree level. Subjects in this study were enrolled in graduate programs leading to four different degrees. They were# (a) Master of Education, (b) Specialist of Education, (c) Doctor of Education, and (d) Doctor of Philosophy. They were combined into two groups: (a) Group 1, Master's, and (b) Group 2, Post-Master's.

Age of subject. There were three age groupings.

They weres (a) Group 1, 20-24, (b) Group 2, 25-29, and

(c) Group 3, Over 30.

Sex of subjects. The subjects were also grouped according to sex. The groupings were: (a) Group 1, Female,

and (b) Group 2, Male.
Years of teaching. There were two groups used to

classify the subjects according to their number of years of special education teaching experience. They were,
(a) Group 1, zero years of teaching experience (Zero Years), and (b) Group 2, one or more years of teaching experience (One or More Years).








Dependent Variables

There were 39 dependent variables in the research
design. They were the variables measured by each of the personality inventories included in the test battery. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule measures 15 variables, the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey measures six variables, and the California Psychological Inventory measures 18 variables (see Appendix A for the description of the variables).


Hypotheses

The null hypotheses of this study weres
1. No significant differences (2(.05) will exist
between the mean scores of the subjects in the

five Area of Specialization groups on the 39 dependent variable measures.
2. No significant differences (p( .05) will exist

between the mean scores of the subjects in the

two Degree Level groups on the 39 dependent variable measures.

3. No significant differences (p<.05) will exist

between the mean scores of the subjects in the

three Age groups on the 39 dependent variable measures.

4. No significant differences (P.05) will exist
between the mean scores of the Male and Female subjects on the 39 dependent variable measures.








5. No significant differences (p-4.05) will exist

between the mean scores of the subjects grouped

according to Years of Teaching on the 39 dependent

variable measures.


Statistical Analysis
All data analysis was performed by an IBM 370/165 computer. The subprograms used for the statistical analysis were part of the system of computer programs entitled Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975).

The data were first analyzed to determine the basic distributional characteristics of the five independent variables and the 39 dependent variables. The frequencies of the independent measures were obtained using SPSS subprogram FREQUENCIES. The frequencies, means, and standard deviations of the dependent variables were obtained using SPSS subprogram CONDESCRIPTIVE.

A series of one-way analysis of variance programs were run to test the null hypotheses. SPSS subprogram ONEWAY was used. When appropriate, the a posteriori contrast used was Tukey's alternative procedure, alpha .05.
Discriminant function analysis was conducted to (a) determine how the significant dependent variables related to each other, and (b) to determine their contribution to the discrimination between groups. SPSS subprogram DISCRIMINANT was used for this analysis.







Limitations

1. The study was dependent on the use of paper-andpencil personality inventories.
2. Many subjects were "test wise."
3. The completion of the test battery was voluntary.
4. There was no control group with which to compare the results of the entire sample.

5. The number of subjects in different independent variable subgroups varied greatly.












CHAPTER IV

RESULTS


This chapter presents the results of the data

analysis. It is organized according to the statistical method used to analyze the data, and the purpose of the analysis.

Distributional Characteristics of Data

The means and standard deviations of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) variables for the entire sample are presented in Table 4. The means and standard deviations of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values (SV) variables for the entire sample are presented in Table 5. The means and standard deviations of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) variables for the entire sample are presented in Table 6.

The absolute and relative frequencies of the independent variables for the entire sample are presented in Table 7. A frequency count of the subject's years of special education administrative experience and university attended by the subject are presented for informative purposes, and are not included in any further analysis.







TABLE 4
Means and Standard Deviations
of the EPPS Variables For the Entire Samplea


Variable Mean Standard Deviation Achievement 16.50 4.59 Deference 10.88 3.02 Order 8.18 4.26 Exhibition 13.37 3.80 Autonomy 14.11 3.96 Affiliation 16.77 4.23 Intraception 16.68 4.63 Succorance 12.11 4.30 Dominance 14.82 4.70 Abasement 9.27 4.71 Nurturance 15.60 5.22 Change 18.84 4.59 Endurance 12.63 4.48

Heterosexuality 16.37 5.23 Aggression 10.58 4.56








TABLE 5

Means and Standard Deviations
of the SV Variables For the Entire Samplea


Variable Mean Standard Deviation Theoretical 42.19 8.57 Economic 39.79 6.83 Aesthetic 45.29 8.25 Social 41.19 8.07 Political 40.05 7.30 Religious 31.63 11.05


aN=112



Analysis of Variance

To test the null hypothesis, one-way analysis of
variance was used. This section reports the results of that analysis, and is organized according to the hypothesis tested.

Hypothesis 1

No significant differences (p<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the

five Area of Specialization groups on the 39 dependent variable measures.
The means of the 15 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables for the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups are presented in Table 8. The mean scores







TABLE 6

Means and Standard Deviations
of the CPI Variables For the Entire Samplea


Variable Mean Standard Deviation Dominance 30.65 5.44 Capacity for Status 21.72 3.30 Sociability 26.94 4.64 Social Presence 40.15 5.60 Self-Acceptance 23.55 3.16 Sense of Well-Being 37.21 4.38 Responsibility 29.49 4.25 Socialization 37.08 6.69 Self-Control 27.97 6.48 Tolerance 23.25 3.97 Good Impression 17.44 5.84 Communality 25.41 2.20 Achievement via Conformance 28.76 3.81 Achievement via Independence 22.79 3.79 Intellectual Efficiency 40.87 4.51 Psychological Mindedness 13.18 2.52 Flexibility 11.85 3.81 Femininity 20.65 4.80


aN=112







TABLE 7

Absolute and Relative Frequencies of the
Independent Variables For the Entire Samplea


Absolute Relative
Variable Frequency Frequency (percent)

Age of Subject
Group 1, 20-24 42 37.5 Group 2, 25-29 40 35.7 Group 3, Over 30 30 26.8
Sex of Subject
Group 1, Female 76 67.9 Group 2, Male 36 32.1

Degree Level
Group 1, Master's 73 65.2 Group 2, Post-Master's 39 34.8

Area of Specialization
Group 1, MR 50 44.6 Group 2, ED 19 17.0 Group 3, LD 26 23.2 Group 4, Blind 8 7.1 Group 5, Admin. 9 8.0

Years of Teaching
Group 1, 0 years 55 49.1 Group 2, 1 or more years 57 50.9

University of Subject
Group 1, Univ. of Fla. 81 72.3 Group 2, FSU 31 27.7

Years of Administration
Group 1, 0 years 94 83.9 Group 2, 1 or more years 18 16.1


aN=l12







TABLE 8
Means of the EPPS Variables
For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3. 4, and 5


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
MR ED LD Blind Admin.
Variable N=50 N=19 N=26 N=8 N=9 Achievement 15.30 18.47 17.62 15.75 16.44 Deference 11.20 10.95 10.08 11.00 11.11 Order 8.94 6.47 7.65 5.75 11.22 Exhibition 13.42 12.84 14.38 11.00 13.33 Autonomy 14.28 15.21 14.15 11.25 13.22 Affiliation 16.70 16.21 16.81 18.75 16.44 Intraception 16.76 17.37 15.23 16.00 19.56 Succorancea 11.64 12.05 12.50 16.25 10.00 Dominance 14.82 14.84 13.69 14.75 18.11 Abasement 9.78 8.68 9.00 9.75 8.00 Nurturance 15.24 16.37 15.38 19.50 13.11 Change 18.74 19.47 19.81 16.25 17.56 Endurance 13.02 12.21 12.62 11.50 12.44 Heterosexuality 16.00 16.89 15.69 19.50 16.44 Aggressionb 10.50 11.32 11.77 10.50 6.11


a Mean of Group 4 significantly larger than means of Groups 1, 2. 3, and 5; -4.05.
bMeans of Group 2 and Group 3 significantly larger than mean of Group 5; 1< .05.








of the five groups differ significantly on two dependent variable measures: Succorance and Aggression. The Succorance mean score of Group 4, Blind, is significantly larger (P (.05) than the means of Group 1, MR, Group 2, ED, Group 3, LD, and Group 5, Admin. The Aggression mean scores of Group 2, ED, and Group 3, LD, are significantly larger (P4 .05) than the mean of Group 5, Admin. The standard deviations of the EPPS variables for the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups are presented in Table 9.

The means and standard deviations of the six Study of Values variables for the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups are presented in Tables 10 and 11. No significant difference between these variables was found.

The means of the 18 California Psychological Inventory variables for the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups are presented in Table 12. The mean scores of the five groups differ significantly on five dependent variable measures: Responsibility, Communality, Flexibility, and Femininity. The Responsibility mean scores of Group 4, Blind, and Group 5, Admin., are significantly larger (P4.05) than the mean of Group 3, LD. The Communality mean score of Group 4, Blind, is significantly larger (P 4.05) than the mean scores of Group 1, MR, Group 2, ED, and Group 5, Admin. The Flexibility mean score of Group 2, ED, is significantly larger (p(.05)







TABLE 9
Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables
For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
MR ED LD Blind Admin.
Variable N=50 N=19 N=26 N=8 N=9 Achievement 4.34 3.76 5.50 2.19 4.82 Deference 3.16 3.17 2.91 2.62 2.80 Order 4.51 4.22 3.27 2.43 4.58 Exhibition 4.05 4.0 3.16 2.27 4.36 Autonomy 4.34 3.39 3.92 1.58 3.73 Affiliation 3.92 4.61 3.95 5.87 4.69 Intraception 4.09 4.76 5.28 5.50 3.54 Succorance 4.19 4.18 3.76 2.96 5.83 Dominance 4.88 3.82 4.97 4.74 3.92 Abasement 4.38 5.08 5.97 3.06 2.74 Nurturance 4.21 8.07 4.69 2.88 4.78 Change 4.58 5.07 3.97 4.17 5.34 Endurance 4.05 5.09 5.00 5.37 3.68 Heterosexuality 5.76 3.97 4.74 3.07 7.07 Aggression 4.76 5.08 3.25 4.31 3.76










Area of


TABLE 10
Means of the SV Variables For Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
Variable MR ED LD Blind Admin.
N=50 N=19 N=26 N=8 N=9

Theoretical 43.32 40.79 43.35 35.50 41.44 Economic 39.08 38.79 42.15 39.25 39.44 Aesthetic 44.40 48.68 43.42 49.75 44.44 Social 41.20 42.16 40.50 42.25 40.11 Political 38.64 40.47 43.15 39.75 38.22 Religious 33.52 30.42 27.42 33.50 34.22




TABLE 11
Standard Deviations of the SV Variables
For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
Variable MR ED LD Blind Admin.
N=50 N=19 N=26 N=8 N=9

Theoretical 8.70 6.66 10.43 2.45 7.00 Economic 6.97 8.15 5.58 6.25 6.64 Aesthetic 7.65 7.24 9.78 3.24 9.80 Social 7.58 10.15 8.11 2.31 10.23 Political 7.20 8.78 6.oo 6.52 7.05 Religious 12.08 8.91 10.60 7.31 11.29








TABLE 12

Means of the CPI Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Variable MR ED LD Blind Admin.
N=50 N=19 N=26 N=8 N=9


Dominance


Capacity for Status

Sociability

Social Presence Self-Acceptance Sense of WellBeing

Responsibilitya Socialization Self-Control Tolerance Good Impression Communalityb Achievement via Conformance
Achievement via Independence Intellectual Efficiency Psychological Mindedness Flexibilityc Femininityd


31.08 21.70 26.82 39.24 23.12 36.98 29.06 35.22 28.28

23.86 18.40 25.00


29.21

22.42

26.53

40.53 23.47

37.16 30.47 38.89 28.37 23.37 15.42 25.16


28.26 28.32 22.40 24.26


41.38 13.26 11.74 19.84


41.58 13.89 13.84 21.84


29.08 21.27 27.35 41.16 23.46 36.69 27.65 37.69 25.88 22.27 16.50
25.73 28.08

22.50

39.38

13.04 11.69 21.12


33.00 22.25

27.50 41.50 24.50


39.25 32.75 41.25 29.25 22.50

17.00 28.00

32.50 22.50

42.75

11.75 11.00
26.25


33.78 21.22 26.78 40.44 25.44

38.22 32.22 38.11 30.33 23.11 19.44 25.11

30.55 22.89

39.11 12.89 9.44 16.33








Table 12 - continued
aMeans of Group 4 and Group 5 significantly larger than mean of Group 31 P-.05.
bMean of Group 4 significantly larger than means of Groups 1, 2, and 51 24.05.
CMean of Group 2 significantly larger than mean of Group 5;
P (.05.
dMean of Group 4 significantly larger than means of Groups 1, 3, and 5; �4.05.



than the mean of Group 5, Admin. The Femininity mean score of Group 4, Blind, is significantly larger (P (.05)

than the mean scores of Group 1, MIR, Group 3, LD, and Group 5, Admin. The standard deviations of the CPI variables of the five Area of Specialization groups are presented in Table 13.

Hypothesis 2
No significant differences (P.<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the

two Degree Level groups on the 39 dependent variable measures.

The means and standard deviations of the 15 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables for the subjects in the two Degree Level groups are presented in Table 14. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on five dependent variable measures: Achievement, Order, Dominance, Abasement, and Nurturance. The Achievement mean score for Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly







TABLE 13
Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables
For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4. and 5


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
Variable MR ED LD Blind Admin.
N=50 N=19 N=26 N=8 N=9 Dominance 4.90 7.66 4.86 4.34 3.19 Capacity for
Status 3.40 2.69 3.53 2.05 4.35 Sociability 3.71 5.98 5.66 3.82 4.44 Social Presence 6.07 4.59 6.15 3.82 4.53 Self-Acceptance 2.87 3.03 3.43 3.74 3.54 Sense of WellBeing 4.83 4.26 4.16 2.31 4.15 Responsibility 4.67 2.78 3.49 1.91 4.92 Socialization 4.47 8.64 8.98 4.03 3.86 Self-Control 6.68 6.53 6.43 3.49 7.09 Tolerance 4.33 4.09 3.65 2.67 3.59 Good Impression 6.24 5.27 5.66 2.62 6.58 Communality 2.59 1.6o 1.66 0.00 1.83
Achievement via
Conformance 4.06 3.00 3.96 0.93 3.21
Achievement via
Independence 4.46 2.33 3.93 1.77 2.71 Intellectual
Efficiency 4.84 4.35 4.54 1.91 3.33 Psychological
Mindedness 2.72 2.18 2.75 0.46 2.20 Flexibility 4.18 3.99 3.18 0.00 3.21


4.30 4.74 4.50


Femininity


0.89 5.63







TABLE 14
Means and Standard Deviations of the
EPPS Variables For Degree Level Groups 1 and 2


Mean Standard Deviation Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2
Variable Master's Post-Master's Master's Post-Master's
N=73 N=39


Achievement

Deference Order Exhibition Autonomy Affiliation Intraception Succoranc e Dominance Abasement Nurturance Change Endurance Heterosexuality Aggression


15.58 10.55
7.60 12.86 14.40 17.14 17.18
12.58 13.52 10. 04* 16.88**
19.14 12.08 16.28 10.38


18. 23**

11. 49*
9.26 14.31

13.56 16.08 15.74 11.23 17.26**
7.82 13.21 18.28

13.67 16.51
10.95


4.30 3.17 4.22

3.51 3.95 4.51
4.64 4.07
4.43 4.76 5.08 4.34 4.58

5.07
4.65


4.66 2.65 4.18 4.19 3.98 3.59
4.53 4.63 4.27

4.30 4.67 5.03 4.14

5.59 4.42


*22 ( .05
**R �01
***p <. 001








larger (p<.01) than the mean score for Group 1, Master's. The Order mean score for Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly larger (R<.05) than the mean score for Group 1, Master's. The Dominance mean score for Group 2, PostMaster's, is significantly larger (p <.001) than the mean score for Group 1, Master's. The Abasement mean score for Group 1, Master's, is significantly larger (p (.05) than the mean score for Group 2, Post-Master's. The Nurturance mean score for Group 1, Master's, is significantly greater (p(.001) than the mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's.

The means and standard deviations of the six Study of Values variables for the subjects in the two Degree Level groups are presented in Table 15. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on two dependent variable measures, Theoretical and Social. The Theoretical mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly greater (P(.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Master's. The Social mean score of Group 1, Master's, is significantly greater (p.C.05) than the mean score of Group 2, PostMaster's.
The means and standard deviations of the 18 California Psychological Inventory variables for the subjects in the two Degree Level groups are presented in Table 16. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on six dependent variable measures, Dominance, Socialization, Self-Control, Good Impression, Achievement via Conformance, and Femininity. The Dominance mean score of Group 2,







TABLE 15

Means and Standard Deviations of the
SV Variables For Degree Level Groups 1 and 2


Mean Standard Deviation Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2
Variable Master's Post- Master's PostMaster's Master's N=73 N=39

Theoretical 40.73 44.92* 7.98 9.07 Economic 39.19 40.90 6.59 7.21 Aesthetic 45.63 44.64 8.15 8.51 Social 42.51* 38.72 8.03 7.65 Political 39.40 41.26 7.34 7.16 Religious 33.07 28.95 10.88 11.00



* p 4.05


Post-Master's, is significantly larger (p 4.01) than the mean score of Group 1, Master's. The Socialization mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly larger (P.4.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Master's. The Self-Control mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly larger (P 4.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Master's. The Good Impression mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly larger (p<.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Master's. The Achievement via Conformance mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly larger (p <.01) than the mean score of Group 1,








TABLE 16

Means and Standard Deviations of the
CPI Variables For Degree Level Groups 1 and 2


Variable


Mear Group 1 Master's

N=73


Group 2 PostMaster's N=39


Standard Deviation Group 1 Group 2 Master's PostMaster' s


Dominance Capacity for Status

Sociability Social Presence

Self-Acceptance Sense of Well-Being Responsibility Socialization Self-Control Tolerance Good Impression Communality Achievement via Conformance

Achievement via Independence Intellectual Efficiency Psychological Mindedness Flexibility Femininity


*11< .05 **2~< .01


29.52 21.51 26.70 40.30 23.33 36.78

29.23 36.1o 26.93

22.99 16.38 25.48 28.04 22.66 40.82 12.90 11.97 21. 67*


32.77** 22.13 27.38 39.87 23.95 38.00 29.97 38.92* 29.92*

23.74 19.41* 25.28 30.10* 23.03

40.95 13.69 11.62
18.74


5.71

3.27 4.8o 5.68 3.11 4.75 3.93 5.22
6.22 4.08

5.47 2.20


3.97

3.76 4.52 2.50

3.87 4.17


4.18 3.37 4.34

5.50

3.26 3.50
4.80

8.59 6.58 3.77
6.08 2.24


3.87 4.55 2.51

3.74 5.36


*P < .05


**p <. Ol0








Masters. The Femininity mean score of Group 1, Master's, is significantly larger (p<.01) than the mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's.

Hypothesis 3

No significant differences (P(. 05) will exist
between the mean scores of the subjects in the

three Age groups on the 39 dependent variable measures.

The means of the 15 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables for the subjects in the three Age groups are presented in Table 17. The mean scores of the three groups differ significantly on seven dependent variable measuress Achievement, Deference, Dominance, Abasement, Nurturance, Endurance, and Aggression. The Achievement mean score of Group 2, 25-29, is significantly larger (p (.001) than the mean score of Group 1, 20-24. The Deference mean scores of Group 2, 24-29, and Group 3, Over 30, are significantly larger (p( .05) than the mean score of Group 1, 20-24. The Dominance mean scores of Group 2, 25-29, and Group 3, Over 30, are significantly larger (p<.01) than the mean score of Group 1, 20-24. The Abasement mean score of Group 1, 20-24, is significantly larger (P <.05) than the mean score of Group 3, Over 30. The Nurturance mean score of Group 1, 20-24, is significantly larger (P<.01) than the mean scores of Group 2, 25-29, and Group 3, Over 30. The Endurance








TABLE 17
Means of the EPPS Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Variable 20-24 25-29 Over 30 N=42 N=40 N=30 Achievementa 14.83 18.48 16.20 Deferenceb 9.83 11.40 11.63 Order 8.10 8.08 8.43 Exhibition 13.33 13.35 13.43 Autonomy 14.17 14.48 13-53 Affiliation 17.52 16.33 16.30 Intraception 17.45 15.50 17.17 Succorance 12.86 11.55 11.80 Dominancec 13.07 15.78 16.oo Abasementd 10.69 8.78 7.93 Nurturanc ee 17.81 14.08 14.53 Change 19.90 18.13 18.30 Endurancef 11.07 14.05 12.93 Heterosexuality 16.48 16.20 16.43 Aggressiong 9.17 11.85 10.87


aMean of Group 2 significantly larger than mean of Group 1; P'< .001.
bMeans of Group 2 and Group 3 significantly larger than mean of Group 1; P-.05.
CMeans of Group 2 and Group 3 significantly larger than mean of Group 1; p <.01.








Table 17 - continued
dMean of Group 1 significantly larger than mean of Group 3;
_ 4.05.
eMeans of Group 2 and Group 3 significantly larger than mean of Group 1; p(.01.
fMean of Group 2 significantly larger than mean of Group 1i
2 4.01.
gMean of Group 2 significantly larger than mean of Group 1;
S4.05.


mean score of Group 2, 25-29, is significantly larger (p, .05) than the mean score of Group 1, 20-24. The standard deviations of the EPPS variables for the subJects in the three Age groups are presented in Table 18.

The means and standard deviations of the six Study of Values variables for the subjects in the three Age groups are presented in Tables 19 and 20. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on three dependent variable measures Theoretical, Economic, and Social. The Theoretical mean score of Group 2, 25-29, is significantly larger (P-(.05) than the mean score of Group 1, 20-24. The Economic mean score of Group 2, 2529, is significantly larger (p 4.01) than the mean scores of Group 1, 20-24, and Group 3, Over 30. The Social mean score of Group 1, 20-24, is significantly larger (p2(.01) than the mean scores of Group 2, 25-29, and Group 3, Over 30.
The means of the 18 California Psychological Inventory variables for the subjects in the three Age groups








TABLE 18

Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables
For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Variable 20-24 25-29 Over 30 N=42 N=40 N=30 Achievement 4.17 4.21 4.77 Deference 3.23 2.71 2.80 Order 4.22 4.26 4.45 Exhibition 3.84 4.24 3.21 Autonomy 3.67 3.95 4.41 Affiliation 4.91 3.46 4.11 Intraception 3.83 5.62 3.97 Succorance 4.47 3.92 4.54 Dominance 4.94 4.20 4.39 Abasement 4.81 5.51 2.48 Nurturance 4.41 5.29 5.27 Change 3.55 4.71 5.50 Endurance 4.70 4.49 3.47 Heterosexuality 4.85 4.92 6.24 Aggression 4.31 4.01 5.15








TABLE 19

Means of the SV Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Variable 20-24 25-29 Over 30 N=42 N=4o N=30 Theoretical a 39.76 44.35 42.70 Economicb 38.24 42.43 38.43 Aesthetic 45.86 44.98 44.90 Socialc 44.52 38.68 39.87 Political 39.40 40.50 40.33 Religious 32.57 29.38 33.33


aMean of Group 2 significantly larger than mean of Group i P- <.05.
bMean of Group 2 significantly larger than means of Group 1 and Group 3; P.01.
CMean of Group 1 significantly larger than means of Group 2 and Group 31 p(.01.


are presented in Table 21. The mean scores of the three groups differ significantly on one dependent variable

measures Femininity. The Femininity mean score of Group 1, 20-24, is significantly greater than the mean score of Group 3, Over 30. The standard deviations of the CPI variables for the subjects in the three Age groups are presented in Table 22.








TABLE 20

Standard Deviations of the
SV Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Variable 20-24 25-29 Over 30 N=42 N=40 N=30 Theoretical 8.01 8.86 8.35 Economic 6.95 6.34 6.43 Aesthetic 8.05 8.43 8.53 Social 7.83 7.29 8.05 Political 6.79 7.42 7.98 Religious 11.88 9.56 11.56




Hypothesis 4

No significant differences (P 405) will exist between the mean scores of the Male and Female subjects on the 39 dependent variable measures.

The means and standard deviations of the 15 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables for the Female and Male subjects are presented in Table 23. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on seven

dependent variable measures Autonomy, Intraception, Succorance, Dominance, Nurturance, Change, and Heterosexuality. The Autonomy mean score of Group 2, Male, is significantly larger (P< .05) than the mean score of Group 1, Female. The Intraception mean score of Group 1, Female,








TABLE 21
Means of the CPI Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Variable 20-24 25-29 Over 30 N=42 N=40 N=30

Dominance 29.60 30.95 31.73 Capacity for Status 21.26 22.05 21.93 Sociability 26.50 27.30 27.07 Social Presence 40.36 40.28 39.70 Self-Acceptance 23.17 23.93 23.57 Sense of Well-Being 37.67 35.90 38.30 Responsibility 29.40 28.83 30.50 Socialization 37.50 37.08 36.50 Self-Control 28.00 27.15 29.03 Tolerance 23.12 22.73 24.13 Good Impression 16.90 16.62 19.2? Communality 25.74 25.63 24.67 Achievement via
Conformance 28,02 28.98 29.50 Achievement via
Independence 23.19 22.25 22.93 Intellectual Efficiency 4o.64 40.05 42.27 Psychological
Mindedness 13.00 13.38 13.17 Flexibility 12.48 11.73 11.13 Femininitya 22.48 20.08 18.87


aMean of Group 1 significantly larger than mean of Group 3; R< .01.








TABLE 22

Standard Deviations of the
CPI Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Variable 20-24 25-29 Over 30 N=42 N=40 N=30


Dominance 5.17 4.79 6.45 Capacity for Status 3.55 2.93 3.44 Sociability 4.58 4.91 4.46 Social Presence 6.22 5.01 5.58 Self-Acceptance 2.93 3.79 2.54 Sense of Well-Being 4.40 4.38 4.04 Responsibility 3.84 4.11 4.87 Socialization 4.48 9.50 4.57 Self-Control 6.59 5.89 7.10 Tolerance 4.32 3.61 3.92 Good Impression 4.93 5.88 6.71 Communality 1.67 2.29 2.60 Achievement via
Conformance 4.36 3.04 3.86 Achievement via
Independence 3.83 3.32 4.32 Intellectual Efficiency 4.22 4.00 5.30 Psychological
Mindedness 2.26 2.80 2.53 Flexibility 4.06 2.91 4.46 Femininity 3.93 4.94 5.00







TABLE 23

Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For Females and Males


Mean Standard Deviation Group I Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Variable Female Male Female Male
N=76 N=36


Achievement Deference Order
Exhibition Autonomy Affiliation Intraception

Succorance Dominance
Abasement Nurturance Change Endurance
Heterosexuality Aggression


16.09
10.83

7.95
13.18
13.59

17.07 17.30* 13.04***

13.86 9.78 16.55**

19.42* 12.29
15.58

10.04


*P < �05
*'I < .01
**' < �001


17.36 10.97 8.67

13.75
15.19* 16.14
15.36 10.14

16.86**
8.19 13.58 17.61

13.36 18.03*

11.72


4.31
3.17 4.38 3.87 3.79 4.37 4.58 4.19 4.38 4.81

5.03

4.36 4.72 4.99 4.61


5.08 2.72 4.00 3.68 4.14 3.89 4.51
3.90

4.78 4.34 5.11 4.88

3.89
5.41 4.28








is significantly larger (P-.05) than the mean score of Group 2, Male. The Succorance mean score of Group 1, Female, is significantly larger (p <.001) than the mean score of Group 2, Male. The Dominance mean score of Group 2, Male, is significantly larger (p<.Ol) than the mean score of Group 1, Female. The Nurturance mean score of Group 1, Female, is significantly larger (p (.01) than the mean score of Group 2, Male. The Change mean score of Group 1, Female, is significantly larger (p(.05) than the mean score of Group 2, Male. The Heterosexuality mean score of Group 2, Male, is significantly larger (P- 4.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Female.
The means and standard deviations of the six Study of Values variables for the Female and Male subjects are presented in Table 24. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on three dependent variable measures: Theoretical, Political, and Religious. The Theoretical mean score of Group 2, Males, is significantly larger (p (.001) than the mean score of Group 1, Female. The Political mean score of Group 2, Male, is significantly larger (P .05) than the mean score of Group 1, Female. The Religious mean score of Group 1, Female, is significantly larger (p.C.01) than the mean score of Group 2, Male.
The means and standard deviations of the 18 California Psychological Inventory variables for the Female and Male subjects are presented in Table 25. The mean








TABLE 24

Means and Standard Deviations
of the SV Variables For Females and Males


Mean Standard Deviation Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2
Variable Female Male Female Male
N=76 N=36

Theoretical 40.18 46.42*** 8.30 7.64 Economic 39.11 41.22 6.32 7.69 Aesthetic 46.16 43.44 7.94 8.70 Social 43.14 39.17 7.83 8.31 Political 39.03 42.19** 6.98 7.57 Religious 33.70* 27.28 10.81 10.39


*� .05

** ( .01

*** 41 .001



scores of the two groups differ significantly on two dependent variable measures Responsibility and Femininity. The Responsibility mean score and the Femininity mean score of Group 1, Female, are significantly larger (p.(.001) than the mean scores of Group 2, Male. Hypothesis-5
No significant differences (p< .05)will exist
between the mean scores of the subjects grouped

according to Years of Teaching on the 39 dependent

variable measures.







TABLE 25
Means and Standard Deviations
of the CPI Variables For Females and Males


Mean Standard Deviation Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Variable Female Male Female Male N=76 N=36

Dominance 30.01 32.00 5.86 4.18 Capacity for Status 22.04 21.06 3.44 2.91 Sociability 27.13 26.53 4.86 4.16 Social Presence 39.93 40.61 5.93 4.87 Self-Acceptance 23.36 23.94 3.19 3.10 Sense of Well-Being 37.47 36.64 4.41 4.31 Responsibility 30.39* 27.58 3.95 4.26 Socialization 37.46 36.28 5.12 9.21 Self-Control 28.17 27.56 6.44 6.63 Tolerance 23.47 22.78 4.24 3.34 Good Impression 17.34 17.64 6.08 5.39 Communality 25.62 24.97 1.85 2.79
Achievement via
Conformance 28.78 28.72 3.91 3.65
Achievement via
Independence 22.92 22.50 4.11 3.02
Intellectual
Efficiency 41.01 40.56 4.15 5.24 Psychological
Mindedness 13.00 13.55 2.46 2.63 Flexibility 11.55 12.47 3.91 3.57 Femininity 22.68* 16.36 3.40 4.53


*2 < �001








The means and standard deviations of the 15 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables for the subjects grouped according to years of special education teaching experience are presented in Table 26. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on one dependent variable measures Deference. The Deference mean score of Group 2, One or More Years, is significantly larger (P- .05) than the mean score of Group 1, Zero Years.

The means and standard deviations of the six Study of Values variables for the subjects grouped according to years of special education teaching experience are presented in Table 27. There are no significant differences between the groups on these variables.

The means and standard deviations of the 18 California Psychological Inventory variables for the subjects grouped according to years of special education teaching experience are presented in Table 28. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on two dependent

variable measuress Dominance and Achievement via Conformance. The Dominance mean score of Group 2, One or More Years, is significantly larger (P(.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Zero Years. The Achievement via Conformance mean score of Group 2, One or More Years, is significantly larger (p <.01) than the mean score of Group

1, Zero Years.








TABLE 26

Means and Standard Deviations EPPS Variables Teaching Groups


of the
1 and 2


Mean Standard Deviation Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Variable 0 yrs. 1 or more 0 yrs. 1 or more
teaching teaching
N=55 N=57


Achievement

Deference Order Exhibition Autonomy Affiliation Intraception Succorance Dominance Abasement Nurturanc e Change
Endurance Heterosexuality Aggression


16.80 10.27

7.75
13.36 14.13
16.85 16.65 12.51
14.35 9.42

15.84 19.64 12.49 16.6o 10.29


16.21 11.46* 8.60
13.37 14.09 16.68 16.70 11.72 15.28 9.12 15.37 18.07

12.77 16.14 10.86


5.03
2.81 4.21 3.70 4.05 4.44 4.12 4.24

5.09 5.19 5.64
4.22 4.49

5.09
4.84


4.15 3.13
4.30 3.94 3.91 4.05 5.12
4.36 4.30 4.23 4.82
4.83 4.50

5.40 4.30


*1 4 .05








TABLE 27
Means and Standard Deviations of the
SV Variables For Years of Teaching Groups 1 and 2


Mean Standard Deviation Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2
Variable 0 yrs 1 or more 0 yrs 1 or more
teaching teaching
N=55 N=57

Theoretical 42.87 41.53 9.94 7.03 Economic 39.47 40.12 7.05 6.66 Aesthetic 45.84 44.75 8.60 7.94 Social 42.22 40.19 9.23 6.71 Political 40.20 39.89 7.70 6.96 Religious 30.27 32.95 10.62 11.39




Discriminant Function Analysis
Only those dependent variables that were found to
differ statistically between groups were included in the discriminant function analysis. These variables were analyzed to determine their relative contribution to the discrimination between groups.

The six dependent variables that were found to differ significantly (2 (.05) between the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups were: Succorance and Aggression (EPPS)I and Responsibility, Communality, Flexibility, and Femininity (CPI). Their standardized discriminant function coefficients are presented in Table 29.








TABLE 28
Means and Standard Deviations of the
CPI Variables For Years of Teaching Groups 1 and 2


Mean Standard Deviation Group 1 Group 2 Group I Group 2 Variable 0 yrs. 1 or more 0 yrs. 1 or more teaching teaching N=55 N=57

Dominance 29.40 31.86* 5.94 4.64 Capacity for Status 21.47 21.96 3.60 2.99 Sociability 26.40 27.46 4.60 4.66 Social Presence 40.29 40.02 5.32 5.90 Self-Acceptance 23.42 23.67 2.93 3.39 Sense of Well-Being 36.84 37.56 4.45 4.32 Responsibility 28.78 30.18 3.90 4.48 Socialization 37.04 37.12 5.90 7.42 Self-Control 27.04 28.88 6.70 6.18 Tolerance 23.05 23,44 4.62 3.2? Good Impression 16.36 18.47 6.00 5.54 Communality 25.33 25.49 2.01 2.39
Achievement via
Conformance 27.75 29.74** 3.99 3.38
Achievement via
Independence 22.80 22.77 4.06 3.54
Intellectual
Efficiency 41.24 40.51 4.83 4.18 Psychological
Mindedness 13.07 13.28 2.82 2.21 Flexibility 12.53 11.19 4.20 3.30 Femininity 20.76 20.54 4.50 5.11


*�2 2.05 **p .. 01








TABLE 29
Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients
Area of Specialization


Variable Coefficient EPPS
Succorance -0.14 Aggression -0.41

CPI
Responsibility 0.09 Communality -0.34 Flexibility -0.28 Femininity -0.65




The coefficients represent the relative contribution of the variables to the function (Nie et al., 1975). The results are statistically significant (p,(.001).

The group centroids are presented in Table 30. These figures indicate how far the groups are along the dimension being used to discriminate between the groups (Nie et al., 1975).

The 13 dependent variables that were found to differ significantly (2 <.05) between the subjects in the two Degree Level groups were, Achievement, Order, Dominance, Abasement, and Nurturance (EPPS), Theoretical and Social

(SV), and Dominance, Socialization, Self-Control, Good








TABLE 30

Centroids of Groups
Area of Specialization


Group Centroid Group I
MR 0.19

Group 2
ED -0.30 Group 3
LD -0.26 Group 4
Blind

Group 5
Admin. 1.33




Impression, Achievement via Conformance, and Femininity (CPI). The standardized discriminant function coefficients are presented in Table 31. The results are statistically significant (p (.001). The group centroids are presented in Table 32.

The 11 dependent variables that were found to differ significantly (p <.05) between the subjects in the three
Age groups were Achievement, Deference, Dominance, Abasement, Nurturance, Endurance, and Aggression (EPPS), Theoretical, Economic, and Aesthetic (SV), and Femininity (CPI). The standardized discriminant function coefficients are presented in Table 33. The group centroids are presented in Table 34.








TABLE 31

Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients Degree Level


Variable Co efficient EPPS

Achievement -0.26 Order -0.20 Dominance -0.20 Abasement 0.03 Nurturance 0.46 SV

Theoretical -0.10 Social 0.05 CPI

Dominance -0.34 Socialization -0.23 Self-Control -0.12 Good Impression -0.08 Achievement via Conformance -0.14 Femininity 0.16








TABLE 32

Centroids of Groups
Degree Level


Group Centroid Group 1
Master's 0.48 Group 2
Post-Master's -0.90




TABLE 33

Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients Age


Variable Coeffic i ent


EPPS

Achievement Deference Dominance Abasement Nurturanc e

Endurance Aggression SV

Theoretical

Economic Aesthetic CPI


0.34

o.44 0.34

-0.39
-0.20

0.45 0.34


-0.13

-0.09

-0.42


Femininity


-0.27








TABLE 34

Centroids of Groups
Age


Group Centroid Group 1
20-24 -1.08 Group 2
25-29 0.72 Group 3
Over 30 0.56




The 12 dependent variables that were found to differ significantly (P.(.05) between the Male and Femals subjects were, Autonomy, Intraception, Succorance, Dominance, Nurturance, Change, and Heterosexuality (EPPS)I Theoretical, Political, and Religious (SV); and Responsibility and Femininity (CPI). The standardized discriminant function coefficients are presented in Table 35. The results are statistically significant (p (.001). The group centroids are presented in Table 36.

The three dependent variables that were found to differ significantly (p-< .05) between the subjects who had no special education teaching experience and those who had one or more years of experience weret Deference (EPPS); and Dominance and Achievement via Conformance (CPI). The standardized discriminant function coefficients are presented in Table 37. The group centroids are presented in Table 38.









TABLE 35 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients
Sex


Variable EPPS

Autonomy Intraception Succorance Dominance Nurturance Change Heterosexuality


Coefficient


0.05

-0.19

-0.37

-0.01

-0.07

-0.52

0.34


Theoretical Political Religious


0.06

-o.o6

-0.29


CPI


Responsibility Femininity


-0.10

-0.87








TABLE 36

Centroids of Groups
Sex


Group Centroid Group 1
Female -0.69 Group 2
Male 1.46




TABLE 37

Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients
Years of Teaching


Variable Coefficient EPPS

Deference 0.72

CPI

Dominance 0.80 Achievement via Conformance 0.54








TABLE 38

Centroids of Groups Years of Teaching


Group Centroid

Group 1
0 years -0.33 Group 2
1 or more years 0.32













CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION


The interpretation of the results is presented in

the first section of this chapter. The results are then related to the research reviewed in Chapter II. A discussion of the original research problem and its relationship to the results of this study are included in the Conclusions section. Implications of this study are considered, as are suggestions for further research. The chapter concludes with a brief summary of the study.


Discussion
The first objective of this study was to generate
an initial personality profile of people who have chosen special education as a profession. To achieve this objective the researcher converted the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and California Psychological Inventory

mean raw scores of the subjects into standard scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. These standard scores are presented in Tables 39 and 40.

None of the standard scores of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables deviates from the mean by as much as one standard deviation. This indicates that








TABLE 39

Standard Scores of the EPPS Variables
For the Entire Sample


Variable Females Males Achievement 57 53 Deference 46 49 Order 45 47 Exhibition 46 49 Autonomy 52 51 Affiliation 49 52 Intraception 49 48 Succoranc e 51 48 Dominance 50 49 Abasement 40 41 Nurturance 51 50 Change 54 55 Endurance 49 51 Heterosexuality 53 51 Aggression 49 48




the mean scores of this sample can be interpreted as average (Edwards, 1959).

Several of the standard scores of the California Personality Inventory variables deviate from the mean by slightly more than one standard deviation. The mean








TABLE 40
Standard Scores of the CPI Variables
For the Entire Sample


Variable Females Males Dominance 56 60 Capacity for Status 55 54 Sociability 55 55 Social Presence 60 63 Self-Acceptance 58 63 Sense of Well-Being 49 49 Responsibility 46 44 Socialization 45 49 Self-Control 44 46 Tolerance 38 39 Good Impression 36 40 Communality 60 58 Achievement via Conformance 52 53 Achievement via Independence 60 60 Intellectual Efficiency 54 54 Psychological Mindedness 57 61 Flexibility 59 59 Femininity 50 49








scores of the variables that were found to be more than one standard deviation above the mean are, Social Presence, Self-Acceptance, and Achievement via Independence. The variables that are more than one standard deviation below the mean are: Tolerance and Good Impression.

Based on these results, these subjects tend to be seen as poised, spontaneous, and self-confident in personal and social interactions. They possess a strong sense of personal worth, and are demanding and aggressive. They have a definite capacity for independent thinking and action, and their achievement is facilitated in settings where autonomy and independence are seen as positive behaviors. The subjects tend to be seen as disbelieving and distrustful in personal and social outlook, and intolerant of other people's social beliefs and attitudes. At the same time, they are not concerned about how others

react to them (Gough, 1969).

In order to interpret the Study of Values mean raw scores, they were compared to the norms presented in the SV Manual (Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1970). Three mean scores exceed the range of 50% of all normative scores on that value. These are presented in Table 41. The male and female Religious mean scores are both definitely low, and the male Aesthetic mean score is definitely high. The low Religious scores indicate a lack of interest in religion and religious experiences. The high Aesthetic

score indicates the subjects tend toward individualism








TABLE 41
Means of the SV Variables For the Entire Sample


Variabl e Females Mal es Theoretical 40.18 46.42 Economic 39.11 41.22 Aesthetic 46.16 43.44a Social 43.14 39.17 Political 39.33 42.19 Religious 33.70a 27.28'


a Scores exceed the range of 50% of all scores on that value.


and self-sufficiency, and have a high degree of interest in artistic aspects of life. Hypothesis 1: Area of Specialization
Based on the results of the analysis of variance,
Hypothesis 1 was rejected. The hypothesis was, No significant differences (p4 .05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups on the 39 dependent variable measures. The six dependent variables that differ significantly between the five groups ares Succorance and Aggression (EPPS)l and Responsibility, Communality, Flexibility, and Femininity (CPI). In descending order of their contribution to the








discrimination between the groups they ares Femininity, Aggression, Communality, Flexibility, Succorance, and Responsibility. The researcher chose not to include Succorance and Responsibility in the interpretation because of their low discriminant function coefficients.

The mean score of the subjects whose area of specialization is the Blind and Partially Sighted is significantly higher than the mean scores of the subjects whose areas of specialization are Mental Retardation and Learning Disabilities on the CPI Femininity variable. Based on these results, the Blind subjects tend to be seen as more gentle, moderate, and sympathetic than the Mental Retardation and Learning Disabilities subjects (Gough, 1969). This high mean score could be a result of the sex of the subjects in the Blind group. Six of the eight subjects were women. This could skew the results so that a statistically real difference was due to a sampling bias.

The mean score of the Blind group is significantly higher than the subjects whose areas of specialization are Mental Retardation, Emotional Disturbance, and Administration on the CPI Communality variable. Based on

these results, the Blind group tends to be seen as more moderate, patient, and sincere than the Mental Retardation, Emotional Disturbance, and Administration subjects (Gough, 1969).
The mean scores of the subjects whose areas of specialization are the Emotionally Disturbed and Learning








Disabled are significantly higher on the EPPS Aggression variable than the Administration subjects. Based on these results the Administration subjects are less likely to attack contrary points of view, criticize others publicly, and blame others when things go wrong (Edwards, 1959).

The Administration group scored significantly lower

on the CPI Flexibility variable than the group of subjects whose area of specialization is the Emotionally Disturbed. Based on these results, the Administration subjects tend to be seen as more deliberate, methodical, and more deferential to authority, custom, and tradition (Gough, 1969).

Interpretation of the group centroids shows that the subjects whose areas of specialization are Administration and Blind differ significantly from each other on these variables. The subjects whose areas of specialization are the Emotionally Disturbed and Learning Disabled are almost identical when these variables are used to compare them, and the Mental Retardation subjects are very similar to these two groups.
The researcher suggests that the differences between the groups be interpreted with caution. The number of subjects whose areas of specialization are the Blind and Partially Sighted and Administration were both very small (eight and nine, respectively). All significant differences between the five groups involved these two groups. Considering the indication that the scores of the subjects whose areas of specialization were the Emotionally Disturbed,








Learning Disabled, and Mentally Retarded were all very similar on these variable measures, it is possible that if the number of subjects in the other two groups were larger, there would be no significant differences between all five groups. On the other hand, the possibility exists that an increase in the number of subjects would confirm the findings.

Hypothesis 2. Degree Level
Based on the results of the analysis of variance,
Hypothesis 2 was rejected. The hypothesis was: No significant differences (p-(.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the two Degree Level groups on the 39 dependent variable measures. The 13 dependent variables that differ significantly between the two groups areas Achievement, Order, Dominance, Abasement, Nurturance (EPPS); Theoretical and Social (SV)1 and Dominance, Socialization, Self-Control, Good Impression, Achievement via Conformance, and Femininity (CPI). In descending order of their contribution to the discrimination between the groups, they are; Nurturance, Dominance, Achievement, Socialization, Order, Dominance, Femininity, Achievement via Conformance, Self-Control, Good Impression, Theoretical, Social, and Abasement. The researcher chose not to include the last seven variables in the interpretation because of their low discriminant function coefficients.
Based on the results, the following interpretation can be made. The Master's group tends to feel a greater








need to assist others less fortunate than themselves, to be sympathetic and understanding and to show affection toward others. The Post-Master's group tends to be seen as having more leadership ability, dominance, persistence and social initiative. They feel a greater need to argue for their point of view, be the leader in groups to which they belong, and to persuade others to do what they want. The Post-Master's group feels a greater need to be successful, to be recognized authorities, to accomplish tasks of great significance, and to be able to do things better than others. They tend to have written work neat and orderly, to be well organized, and to have things arranged so they run smoothly without change. The Post-Master's group tends to be more serious, conscientious and responsible, and may be seen as self-denying and conforming (Edwards, 19591 Gough, 1969).

This profile of the Post-Master's group seems to conform to the popularly held view of the dominant, aggressive, achievement oriented doctoral student. The Master's group is closer to the norm on all these variables than the Post-Master's group.

Hypothesis 3: Age
Based on the results of the analysis of variance,

Hypothesis 3 was rejected. The hypothesis was, No significant differences (P<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the three Age groups on the 39








dependent variable measures. The 11 variables that differ significantly between the three groups ares Achievement, Deference, Dominance, Abasement, Nurturance, Endurance, Aggression (EPPS); Theoretical, Economic, Aesthetic (SV); and Femininity (CPI). In descending order of their contribution to the discrimination between the groups they ares Endurance, Deference, Aesthetic, Abasement, Achievement, Dominance, Aggression, Femininity, Nurturance, Theoretical, and Economic. The researcher chose not to include the last two variables in the interpretation because of their low discriminant function coefficients.

Based on the mean scores of the groups, the following interpretation can be made. The younger group (age 20-24) feels a lesser need to keep at a job until it is finished or to work hard at a task than the middle group (age 25-29), and they feel more timid in the presence of superiors than does the older group (30 and over). The older group feels a greater need to do their best, to accomplish tasks requiring skill, to attack contrary points of view, and to criticize others than the younger group. Both the middle and older groups feel a greater need to get suggestions from others, to follow instructions, and to do what is expected of them, while at the same time they feel a need to persuade and influence others to do what they want, and to direct the action of others. The older group tends to be seen as more blunt and direct in thinking and action, and manipulative in dealing with others (Edwards, 1959; Gough, 1969).








The group centroids show that the middle and older groups are very similar to each other in terms of these variable measures. Both groups differ significantly from the younger group.

There are similarities between the middle and older groups and the Post-Masters group, and the Masters group and the younger group. An obvious reason for this would be the positive correlation between age and degree level. The younger subjects would be more likely to be in a Masters program, and the older subjects would be more likely to be in a Post-Masters program.


Hypothesis 4s Sex
Based on the results of the analysis of variance,
Hypothesis 4 was rejected. The hypothesis was: No significant differences (p.(.05) will exist between the mean scores of the Male and Female subjects on the 39 dependent variable measures. The 12 variables that differ significantly between the two groups are: Autonomy, Intraception, Succorance, Dominance, Nurturance, Change, Heterosexuality (EPPS), Theoretical, Political, Religious (SV), Responsibility, and Femininity (CPI). In descending order of their contribution to the discrimination between the groups they are: Femininity, Change, Succorance, Religious, Intraception, Responsibility, Nurturance, Theoretical, Political, Autonomy, and Dominance. The researcher chose not to include the last seven variables in the interpretation because of their low discriminant function coefficients.








Based on these results, the following interpretation can be made. The females have significantly more feminine interests than males. They are seen as more patient, gentle, and sincere. They have a greater need to have others provide help when in trouble and to seek encouragement from others. They feel a greater need to understand how others feel about problems and to judge people by why they do things, rather than by what they do. The females feel a greater need to experience novelty and change in daily routine and to experiment and try new things. They are also more religious than the males (Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 19701 Edwards, 1959; Gough, 1969).

Hypothesis 5: Years of Teaching
Based on the results of the analysis of variance,

Hypothesis 5 was rejected. The hypothesis was, No significant differences (P-.05) will exist between the mean

scores of the subjects grouped according to Years of Teaching on the 39 dependent variable measures. The three variables that differ significantly between the two groups are, Deference (EPPS)i and Dominance and Achievement via Conformance (CPI). In descending order of their contribution to the discrimination between the groups they are: Dominance, Deference, and Achievement via Conformance.

Based on the results, those subjects with one or
more years of special education teaching experience have a greater need to follow instructions and to do what is








expected of them, to conform to custom and to avoid the unconventional than the subjects with no special education teaching experience. The experienced teachers are seen as more stable and sincere, and tend to achieve in settings where conformance is a positive behavior (Edwards, 1959; Gough, 1969).

Since there are only three variables that differ between these two groups, it can be concluded that the personality characteristics of these two groups are quite similar. The group that had teaching experience may be older than the group without experience, and this could account for the differences that were found.

The results of this study are consistent with some research studies reviewed in Chapter II, and not with others. Garrison and Scott (1961) found that the personal needs (as measured by the EPPS) of special education students differed significantly from students in other areas of education. When the results of this author's research were interpreted it was found that the personal needs of the sample did not differ significantly from the mean of the inventory normative sample. Since the results were not compared to the results of other groups in education, no further comparisons can be made.
Jones and Gottfried (1966) studied the relationship between psychological needs (as measured by the EPPS) and preference for teaching different types of exceptional children. They found significant differences between








groups of subjects who expressed a preference for teaching children with different handicaps. The present study did not support those findings. This study gave only weak evidence that there exists differences in the psychological needs of special educators in different areas of specialization.
Wakefield and Crowl (1974) attempted to formulate

an image of the ideal special education teacher. The EPPS variables considered most desirable for a special education teacher were Intraception, Nurturance, Endurance, and Achievement. The results of the present study indicated that this sample of special educators did not differ significantly from the norm on any of these variable measures. There may be initial agreement that these needs are desirable for a special education teacher, but there was no indication that this sample possessed those characteristics.

Gottfried and Jones (1964) studied motivational factors associated with the choice of special education as a career. The internalized motives most often given were: (a) a desire to help others, and (b) the challenge of the field. The present research compliments the second finding. A challenging career would appeal to the subjects of this study, who were found to be aggressive and achievement oriented.

Reid, Reid, Whorton, and Reichard (1972) administered

the CPI to special education and nonspecial education majors.








They found significant differences between the groups. This is consistent with the results of the present study. The subjects in the sample differed more than one standard deviation from the mean of the normative sample on five of the variable measures.

There was no indication that the people who choose
to educate emotionally disturbed children need to go through a special screening process, as suggested by Balow (1966). This is consistent with Osipow's (1968) conclusion that "in general, no data exist to suggest a specific relationship between psychopathology and career choice" (p. 177).


Conclusions and Implications
The primary purpose of this study was to generate
an initial personal profile of special educators. Based on the results of the study, it was concluded that special educators tend to be seen as poised, spontaneous, and self-confident in personal and social interactions. They possess a strong sense of personal worth, and are demanding and aggressive. They have a definite capacity for independent thinking and action, and their achievement is facilitated in settings where autonomy and independence are seen as positive behaviors. They are disbelieving and distrustful in personal and social outlook, and intolerant of other people's social beliefs and attitudes. At the same time they are not concerned about how others react to them. In as much as the subjects can be considered








representative of special educators as a group, these characteristics would be typical of them.

The secondary purpose of the study was to determine whether or not there are any differences between special educators in five different areas of specialization. The results indicated that there are no significant differences in the psychological needs, personal values, or personality traits of the people who have chosen the education of mentally retarded, the emotionally disturbed, or learning disabled children as a career. It can be concluded, based on these results, that the choice of area of specialization is not determined by the personality characteristics of

the special educator.

Personality characteristics of special educators
relate to many facets of the profession, including career choice, career satisfaction, recruitment, screening, teacher training, and teacher competence. It is possible that this study can contribute to a general picture of the characteristics of special educators as they relate to career choice. As stated by Zytowski (1970), "members of a given occupation tend to be more like each other and less like people not in that occupation" (p. 76). It is interesting to speculate whether or not the personality characteristics of members of a given occupation, in this case special education, were similar prior to the time they became a group, thus accounting for the similarity, or did they become like one another as a result of group membership.








This profile of the personality characteristics of special educators could also be related to the training sequence. Their strong indication of self-reliance and independence would suggest that a training program that would recognize and reward their independence would encourage the greatest amount of achievement. On the other hand, the training process might have been the cause of group conformity, thus accounting for the high degree of independence and achievement of the group.

Suggestions For Further Research
It is possible that the personality profile generated by this study is not unique to the field of special education. Since all subjects were graduate students, this profile may be more representative of that group, than of special educators. In order to determine the answer to this question, another similar research project could be conducted that would include other groups for comparison purposes.
Approximately one-half of the subjects had one or

more years of special education teaching experience, and had returned to graduate school for more training. It is possible that the personality characteristics isolated in this study are traits needed for success in the field. It is generally thought that a special student needs a special teacher, and it might be the characteristics of self-confidence, independence, and self-centeredness that








contribute to success in the field and satisfaction within the profession. This question also deserves further investigation.
It would be interesting to investigate the relationship of personality characteristics of graduate students at the beginning of their training and at the end. If significant differences were found, it could be concluded that the training process caused some degree of conformity, resulting in a group of people who were "more like each other and less like people not in that occupation" (Zytowski, 1970, p. 76). This is perhaps the reason for the differences between the Master's and Post-Master's subjects.

The knowledge of personality characteristics can also be related to the recruitment process. Special education as a profession has reached the stage that it no longer has to accept people simply to fill its ranks. People can be recruited whose characteristics are commensurate with those of successful people in the profession. For this purpose, a similar study could be conducted that included as subjects those individuals who had been chosen as successful special educators.


Summary
The objectives of this study were# (a) to generate an initial personality profile of people who have chosen special education as a profession, and (b) to determine whether or not there are any significant differences between








the personality characteristics of special educators in different areas of specialization, in different degree level programs, of different ages, with a different number of years of teaching experience, and of both sexes.
The subjects (N=112) were special education graduate students enrolled full-time at two state supported universities in Florida. Three paper-and-pencil inventories were completed by the subjects. They were the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, and the California Psychological Inventory.

Analysis of variance was used to determine whether or not significant differences existed between the mean scores of any of the groups on any of the variable measures of the personality inventories. Discriminant function analysis was used to determine the relationship of the variables to each other, and their contribution to the discrimination between groups.

Based on the results of the analysis, a general personality profile of special educators was developed. There were no significant differences between the subjects whose areas of specialization were Mental Retardation, Emotional Disturbance, and Learning Disabilities. There were significant differences between the subjects in different degree level programs, of different ages, with a different number of years of teaching experience, and of both sexes.




























APPENDIX A

DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIABLES OF THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE,
THE ALLPORT-VERNON-LINDZEY STUDY OF VALUES, AND THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY













THE MANIFEST NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF
THE 15 EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE VARIABLES


1. ach Achievement: To do one's best, to be successful, to accomplish tasks requiring skill and effort, to be a recognized authority, to accomplish something of great significance, to do a difficult job well, to solve difficult problems and puzzles, to be able to do things better than others, to write a great novel or play.

2. def Deference: To get suggestions from others, to find out what others think, to follow instructions and do what is expected, to praise others, to tell others that they have done a good job, to accept the leadership of others, to read about great men, to conform to custom and avoid the unconventional, to let others make decisions.

3. ord Order: To have written work neat and organized, to make plans before starting on a difficult task, to have things organized, to keep things neat and orderly, to make advance plans when taking a trip, to organize details of work, to keep letters and files according to some system, to have meals organized and a definite time for eating, to have things arranged so that they run smoothly without change.

4. exh Exhibitions To say witty and clever things,

to tell amusing jokes and stories, to talk about personal




Full Text

PAGE 1

PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS, PERSONAL VALUES, AND PERSONALITY TRAITS OF GRADUATE LEVEL SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS By PAMELA V. COCHRANE 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

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS An expression of gratitude is extended to the writer's supervisory committee « Myron Cunningham, Ralph Kimbrough, Cary Reichard, and James Whorton. Special appreciation and thanks are extended to the chairman of the committee, William R. Reid, whose assistance and encouragement were essential to the completion of this dissertation. ii

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES v ABSTRACT viii CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM 1 The Purpose 2 Delineation of the Research 4 Objectives 6 Delimitation 7 Definition of Terms 7 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 9 Summary 16 III. METHODOLOGY 17 Selection of Subjects 17 Instrumentation 17 The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule 18 The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values 20 The California Psychological Inventory 21 Questionnaire 24 Procedures 24 Research Design 25 Independent Variables 25 Dependent Variables 27 Hypotheses 27 Statistical Analysis 28 Limitations 29 IV. RESULTS 30 Distributional Characteristics of Data 30 iii

PAGE 4

Analysis of Variance 32 Hypothesis 1 32 Hypothesis 2 kO Hypothesis 3 ^6 Hypothesis h 51 Hypothesis 5 56 Discriminant Function Analysis 60 V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ?0 Discussion ?0 Hypothesis li Area of Specialization ?4 Hypothesis 2i Degree Level 77 Hypothesis 3» Age. 78 Hypothesis kt Sex 80 Hypothesis 5» Years of Teaching. . . 81 Conclusions and Implications 8k Suggestions For Further Research. ... 86 Summary 87 APPENDIX A. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIABLES 0V THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE, THE ALLPORT-VERNON-LINDZEY STUDY OF VALUES, AND THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY 90 B. QUESTIONNAIRE 106 REFERENCES 108 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ill iv

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For the General Adult Sample . . 19 2 Means and Standard Deviations of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values For a Portion of the Normative Sample. . . 21 3 Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations Estimated From a Table For Converting CPI Scores to Standard Scores 23 4 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For the Entire Sample 31 5 Means and Standard Deviations of the SV Variables For the Entire Sample 32 6 Means and Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables For the Entire Sample 33 7 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of the Independent Variables For the Entire Sample 34 8 Means of the EPPS Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. . 35 9 Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 37 10 Means of the SV Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. . 38 11 Standard Deviations of the SV Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 38 12 Means of the CPI Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. . 39 v

PAGE 6

13 Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 4l 14 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For Degree Level Groups 1 and 2. 42 15 Means and Standard Deviations of the SV Variables For Degree Level Groups 1 and 2. 44 16 Means and Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables For Degree Level Groups 1 and 2. 45 17 Means of the EPPS Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 47 18 Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 49 19 Means of the SV Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 50 20 Standard Deviations of the SV Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 51 21 Means of the CPI Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 52 22 Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 53 23 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For Females and Males 54 24 Means and Standard Deviations of the SV Variables For Females and Males 56 25 Means and Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables For Females and Males 57 26 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables Teaching Groups 1 and 2 59 27 Means and Standard Deviations of the SV Variables For Years of Teaching Groups 1 a ^ 2 6o 28 Means and Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables For Years of Teaching Groups 1 and 2 t ^ vi

PAGE 7

29 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients: Area of Specialization. ... 62 30 Centroids of Groups: Area of Specialization 63 31 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients: Degree Level 64 32 Centroids of Groups: Degree Level .... 65 33 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients: Age 65 34 Centroids of Groups: Age 66 35 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients: Sex 67 36 Centroids of Groups: Sex 68 37 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients: Years of Teaching 68 38 Centroids of Groups: Years of Teaching. . 69 39 Standard Scores of the EPFS Variables For the Entire Sample 71 40 Standard Scores of the CPI Variables For the Entire Sample 72 41 Means of the SV Variables For the Entire Sample 7*1 vii

PAGE 8

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 PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS, PERSONAL VALUES, AND PERSONALITY TRAITS OF GRADUATE LEVEL SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS By Pamela V, Cochrane December, 1975 Chairman i William R, Reid Major Departments Special Education The primary objective of the study was to generate a general personality profile of people who have chosen special education as a profession. The other objectives were to determine whether or not there are significant differenc between the personality characteristics of special educators i (a) in specific areas of specialization (mental retardation, emotional disturbance, learning disabilities, blind and partially sighted, and administration), (b) at different levels of graduate training (master's and postmaster's), (c) in different age groups (20-24, 25-29, and over 30), (d) with a different number of years of special education teaching experience (zero years and one or more years), and (e) of both sexes. viii

PAGE 9

The subjects (N=112) were special education graduate students enrolled full-time at two state supported universities in Florida. Three paper-and-pencil personality inventories were completed by the subjects. They were the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS), the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values (SV), and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). Analysis of variance was used to determine whether significant differences (p_<.05) existed between any of the mean scores of the subjects grouped according to area of specialization, degree level, age, years of teaching experience, and sex, on any of the variable measures of the EPPS, SV, and CPI. Discriminant function analysis was used to determine the relationship of the variables to each other and their contribution to the discrimination between groups. Based on the results of the analysis, a general personality profile of the subjects was developed. They tend to be seen as poised, spontaneous, and self-confident in personal and social interactions. They possess a strong sense of personal worth and are demanding and aggressive. They have a definite capacity for independent thinking and action, and their achievement is facilitated in settings where autonomy and independence are seen as positive behaviors. They are disbelieving and distrustful in personal and social outlook, and intolerant of other people's ix

PAGE 10

social beliefs and attitudes. At the same time they are not concerned about how others react to them. There were no significant differences between the personality characteristics of the subjects whose areas of specialization were the education of the emotionally disturbed, the mentally retarded, and the learning disabled. The subjects in the other two areas of specialization (blind and partially sighted and administration) differed significantly, but because of sampling bias, the differences were reported as not valid. Significant differences were found between the subjects working on master's degrees and those in more advanced training programs. The post-master's group tended to be considerably more domineering, aggressive, and achievement oriented than the master's degree subjects. There were significant differences found between the subjects in different age groups. The older subjects tended to be less timid in the presence of superiors, more achievement oriented, and more blunt and direct in thinking and action. Significant differences were also found between the subjects who had special education teaching experience and those who did not. The subjects with teaching experience were found to have a greater need to follow instructions, to conform to custom and to avoid the unconventional than the subjects with no teaching experience. Significant differences were also found between the male and female subjects. x

PAGE 11

CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Special education as a profession is composed of many distinct, yet interlocking and interdependent components. It is these components that have contributed to the recognition of special education as a distinct field within the education profession. The types of children served, the methods and materials used to educate the children, student assessment and diagnosis, teacher training, and many other elements can be included within this framework. These components continue to be defined and developed within the profession through various research and development efforts. One component that requires initial definition and clarification is the personality characteristics of people who have chosen special education as a career.^ The relatively scant attention paid to this element is in direct contrast to the extensive study of personality traits of general educators (Biddle & Ellena, 1964; Gage, 19631 Getzels & Jackson, 1963; Jansen, Jensen, & Mylov, 1972 j Krugman, 1958 1 Ryans, 196O1 Smith, 1971). It is because of this paucity of research that the author 1

PAGE 12

2 chose to study the personality characteristics of special educators . The Purpose Personality characteristics of special educators pcri+w ***** relate to many facets of the profession, including career choice, career satisfaction, recruitment, screening, teacher training, and teacher competence (Burrello & Sage, 1971 1 Garrison & Scott, 196l; Getzels & Jackson, 1963 « Gottfried & Jones, 1964| Jones & Gottfried, 19661 Osipow, 1968 j Reid, Reid, Whorton, & Reichard, 1972 * Rudolf f, 1969 » White, 1970). The author chose to focus this study on the personality characteristics of special educators as they relate to career choice and screening. The knowledge of personality characteristics of people in specific professions enables other people who are interested in entering that field to compare their own traits with those of people already in the field (Gottfried & Jones, 1964). The identification of these characteristics enables students and those who advise them to make better career decisions based on this information. One goal of this study was to develop a general personality profile of special educators for this purpose. **"' Differences in the characteristics of people who chose the different areas of specialization within the field were also examined in this study. General personality traits of people who have specialized in the

PAGE 13

3 education of the mentally retarded, the emotionally disturbed, the learning disabled, and the blind and partially sighted, and special education administration were examined. This information could enable students considering special education as a profession to compare their characteristics with those of people who have specialized in these different areas (Jones, 1966). Information concerning the traits of special educators could be used to implement other personal data to facilitate the decisions of people whose task it is to admit individuals to the profession, i.e., university admissions committees. In some cases individuals are admitted to a training facility only to be dismissed, or to quit, for reasons that relate directly to their personality characteristics. People whose characteristics differ greatly from the majority of those in the field could be directed toward more appropriate professions (Bower & Greenfield, 1973). It is important to remember, however, that these characteristics should not be used as a sine qua non in special education admission decisions. Results of studies such as this offer general guidelines, and are a means to an end and not an end in themselves. There is general agreement among educators that personality traits of teachers directly manifest themselves within the educational context (Bowers & Soar, 1961 i Dobson, 1972i Flanders, 1960j Gage, 19631 Scheuer, 1971 1

PAGE 14

Stringer, 1961 1 Wilk & Edson, 1963). This position is aptly presented by Getzels and Jackson (19&3)* The personality of the teacher is a significant variable in the classroom. Indeed, some would agree it is the most significant variable. The educational impact of an Icabod Crane or a Mark Hopkins, of a Mr. Chips or a Socrates, is surely not due solely to what he knows, or even to what he does, but in a very real sense to what ^ he is. (p. 506) It is for this reason that it is important during the admission process to screen people who, because of their personality traits, may have a detrimental effect on the students they may teach (Bower & Greenfield, 1973). It has been stated that it is advisable to use a special screening process when admitting people to the field of special education who wish to teach emotionally disturbed children (Balow, 1966). This implies that this area of specialization attracts an inordinant number of maladjusted individuals, and this study will investigate what is essentially conjecture (Osipow, 1968). Delineation of the Research For this study it was assumed that a person who has enrolled in a graduate level training program has, by the act of enrollment, indicated his choice of profession. Upon completion of the program it is probable that the graduate will take a position within the profession. It is also probable, particularly at the doctoral level, that many of the subjects in the study have been employed as

PAGE 15

5 special educators prior to their enrollment as graduate students. For this reason, the researcher concluded that graduate students would be representative of the population that is actually employed in the field of special education and would be appropriate subjects. Within the field of special education there are many areas of specialization. Those areas chosen for inclusion in this study weret (a) the education of the mentally retarded (MR), (b) the education of the emotionally disturbed (ED), (c) the education of children with learning disabilities (LD), (d) the education of the blind and partially sighted (Blind), and (e) special education administration (Admin.). The subjects were enrolled in programs leading to three different graduate degrees i (a) Master of Education, (b) Specialist of Education, and (c) Doctor of Education or Doctor of Philosophy. Because of the small number of people in the Specialist program, that group of subjects was combined with the Doctoral level subjects to form a Post-Master's level group. v Factors that researchers consider influential in career choice are ability, attitude, interests, personality characteristics, self-concept, and sociological factors (Getzels & Jackson, 1963). Although it has been stated that comprehensive studies including all of these factors are best (Zytowski, 1970), it is also acknowledged that more modest studies may yield promising leads, suggest new

PAGE 16

6 approaches, and add significant knowledge to the larger problem (Jones, 1966).^ From this list of factors, personality characteristics were chosen by the author for study. Specifically, the subjects in the study were asked to respond to three personality inventories, each of which was respectively designed to measure psychological needs, personal values, and personality traits, Ob.j ectives The specific objectives of this study were» 1. to generate an initial personality profile of people who have chosen special education as a profession, 2. to determine whether there were any significant differences between the subjects in specific areas of specialization within the field of special education (MR, ED, LD, Blind, and Admin.), 3. to determine whether there were any significant differences between the subjects at different levels of training (master's, and post-master's), k. to determine whether there were any significant differences between men and women subjects, 5. to determine whether there were any significant differences between the subjects in different age groups (20-24, 25-29, and 30 and above), and 6, to determine whether there were any significant differences between subjects who have, or have not, taught in special education.

PAGE 17

7 Delimitation Subjects were special education graduate students enrolled full-time during Summer and Fall Terms, 1975, at two state supported universities in Florida i the University of Florida, in Gainesville, and the Florida State University, in Tallahassee. All students in the departments meeting these criteria were asked to participate in the study, and the number of subjects was determined by the response of the students. Three paper-and-pencil personality inventories were administered to the subjects. They were the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, which measures psychological needs, the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, which measures personal values, and the California Psychological Inventory, which measures personality traits. Definition of Terms Personal Value t any characteristic deemed important because of psychological, social, moral, or aesthetic considerations . Personality Characteristics! the totality of an individual's characteristics. Personality Trait i a distinguishing quality of character. Psychological Needt an urge or motivation that has been acquired through experience and education in distinction to a primary drive, which arises out of the direct need of the organism.

PAGE 18

8 Special Education i the education of exceptional children. Special Educator i anyone actively employed in, or training for, the special education profession.

PAGE 19

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Several distinct approaches have been utilized in the study of career choice. The theories that underlie the major approaches arei (a) trait-factor theory, (b) sociological and demographic theory, (c) developmental and self-concept theory, and (d) personality theory (Osipow, 1968). Two of these theories were utilized in this study: trait-factor theory and personality theory. Trait-factor theory is, in its broadest sense, a means of proceeding in research and practice. A researcher first identifies some aspect of behavior for study and then devises some way of measuring it in an appropriate group of subjects. He uses the average score of the group as a reference point for the individual scores. The purpose of the process isi to indicate how far above or below the average of a defined group an individual is with respect to the characteristic measured. (Ebel, 1969, p. 6^0) Much of the psychological testing movement has grown out of this approach (Osipow, 1968). Several elements of personality theory have been selected for use in the study of career choice. Among

PAGE 20

10 these are attitudes, values, interests, adjustment, needs, and personality traits (Getzels & Jackson, 1963; Osipow, 1968). Of these elements, three were chosen by the author for inclusion in this study 1 psychological needs, personal values, and personality traits. As stated by Osipow (1968)1 A psychological needs conception, along with the idea of tension reduction through needs satisfaction, is, in many ways, ideally suited to explain many aspects of career behavior, (p. 153) ^ The conviction is that a person will choose a career that he feels will satisfy his particular needs. A person who is able to successfully identify his own needs and match those to a career that provides potential satisfaction to those needs is more likely to be satisfied with his job than someone who has not considered his needs when choosing a career. The theory underlying the personal values approach is similar to that of the psychological needs approach. An individual has certain personal values that influence his choice of career and the degree of satisfaction with the career. Some values that are typically considered as influential are religious beliefs, prestige, security, and the role of economic return in life (Osipow, 19681 Robinson & Shaver, 1973). In as much as a certain career is consistent with an individual's values, a person will be satisfied with his choice of vocation.

PAGE 21

11 General psychological theory has been applied to vocational behavior in order to study the personality traits of people in certain professions. Research has shown thatt as with interests, values, and needs, members of a given occupation tend to be more like each other and less like people not in that occupation on one or another personality traits measured in one or another ways. (Zytowski, 1970, p. ?6) Also considered in this approach is the relationship between psychopathology and career choice. It has long been speculated that certain occupations attract more than their share of maladjusted individuals. This speculation has led to much research, but the results have been equivocal. Osipow (1968) states that "in general, no data exist to suggest a specific relationship between psychopathology and career choice" (p. 177). An early recognition of the importance of identifying specific personality characteristics of teachers was in 1958 (Krugman, 1958). Until this time there was general agreement that there was an "ideal teacher" who could effectively teach all children. The search for this ideal teacher was appreciated as unrealistic when Bernard (1958) and Biber (1958) postulated that certain personality characteristics of teachers could be related to certain variables, such as the age level of the children taught, in order to facilitate more effective screening, training, and placement of teachers.

PAGE 22

12 The personal needs of special education teachers were studied by Garrison and Scott (196l). They compared the psychological needs of college students preparing to teach in five different areas 1 (a) lower elementary, (b) upper elementary, (c) general secondary, (d) nongeneral secondary, and (e) special education. The hypothesis was that the needs of the students would differ according to their area of specialization. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was used to measure the psychological needs of the subjects (N=530). F-tests of the significance of the difference in means for each of the personal needs scores yielded a highly significant difference (at the .01 level of confidence) on the need for Achievement. Significant differences (at the .05 level of confidence) were also found on the need for Nurturance, the need for Order, and the need for Succorance. The special education students showed a significantly greater need for Achievement than the lower elementary, upper elementary, and nongeneral secondary education students. The home economics students showed a significantly greater need for Order and a lower need for Exhibition than the special education students. Lower and upper elementary and secondary students showed a significantly greater need for Succorance than the special education students. The hypothesis of the study was confirmed for the personal needs for Achievement, Nurturance, Order, and Succorance.

PAGE 23

13 Gottfried and Jones (196*0 studied motivational factors associated with the choice of special education as a career. It was found that the primary reason for entering the field was prior contact with exceptional children. The internalized motives most often given were i (a) a desire to help others, and (b) the challenge of the field. The researchers suggested that if there are specific personal motives for entering special education and if the motives differentiated successful and unsuccessful persons in the field, they could assume importance in the teacher training process. Jones and Gottfried (1966) studied the relationship between psychological needs and preferences for teaching different types of exceptional children. Subjects (N=?26) were asked to complete the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and to rank order their preferences for teaching each of 12 exceptionalities. Of those students preparing to teach exceptional children, high scores on Affliation were associated with preference to teach delinquent and deaf children. Low scores on this subtest were associated with a preference for teaching speech handicapped children. The students who indicated a preference to teach deaf and blind children had high Exhibition scores, and those who preferred to teach delinquent and partially sighted had low Exhibition scores. The psychological needs of special education administrators were studied by Burrello and Sage (1971) using the

PAGE 24

14 Behavior Preference Inventory. The main objective of the study was to validate the Inventory. Using the instrument they found significant need variations between men and women, administrators in different age brackets, and administrators in rural and city settings. Further study of the relationships between personality variables and the decision making process of administrators was suggested, as was the need to sensitize administrators to their personal needs and their influence on the decision making process. Wakefield and Crowl (197*0 attempted to formulate an image of the ideal special education teacher in terms of personality characteristics. Four groups of subjects (N=15*0 (special education professors, teachers, graduate and undergraduate students) were asked to rank order the personality variables of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule in the order that these traits should be exhibited by a special education teacher. There was a high degree of consistency within and among groups, leading the researchers to conclude that there exists "a highly stable image of the ideal special educator in terms of personality needs" (p. 8?). Those needs considered most desirable were Intraception, Nurturance, Endurance, and Achievement, Those considered least important were Exhibition, Heterosexuality, Abasement, and Aggression. Caskey and Lutz (1975) attempted to identify personal influences and values associated with special education as

PAGE 25

15 a career choice. The subjects were special education students and teachers working in the field. Three response patterns to a questionnaire were reported! (a) those people who chose special education as a career because of prior knowledge of the field, (b) those who chose the career because of personal satisfaction obtained while working in the field, and (c) those whose motives are primarily altruistic. As one part of a research project Reid, Reid, Whorton, and Reichard (1972) administered the California Psychological Inventory to special education and nonspecial education college freshmen. This was done as an attempt to improve recruitment and screening procedures. Significant differences between the two groups were found in 10 of the subtests, "all in favor of the special education majors" (p. 130). Significant differences were found in Sense of Weil-Being, Responsibility, Socialization, SelfControl, Tolerance, Achievement via Conformance, Achievement via Independence, Intellectual Efficiency, and Psychological Mindedness. Bower and Greenfield (1973) studied emotional disturbance in the teacher population. They found significant differences between certified teachers and teachers whose certification had been revoked because of emotional disturbance. The revoked group was significantly older at the time of application for credentials, and it was suggested that the revoked group entered education as a

PAGE 26

16 career as a second, third, or last choice. The authors noted that there exists: a remarkable lack of research on prevalence of emotional disturbance in teachers, how screening techniques might be employed, and how institutions of higher learning can redirect more effectively and courageously students with high levels of instability into less emotionally arduous careers, (p. 60) Summary A brief review of the approaches used in the study of career choice that relate directly to this study was first presented. These are trait-factor theory and personality theory. Within the broad approach of personality theory three factors were discussed as they relate to this study i psychological needs, personal values, and personality traits. This was followed by a review of the studies that were designed to address the question of psychological needs, personal values, and personality traits of special educators.

PAGE 27

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The research method used for this study was descriptive. There are two basic goals of this method of research. The first is to systematically describe the characteristics of a given population, and the second is to make comparisons and evaluations (Isaac & Michael, 1971). The researcher attempted to achieve both of these goals in this project. Selection of Subjects The subjects were students at two state supported universities in Florida 1 The University of Florida in Gainesville, and Florida State University in Tallahassee. The subjects were enrolled in each university as fulltime special education graduate students and were attending classes during Summer and Fall Terms, 1975. An attempt was made to include as subjects all students who met these criteria. Instrumentation Three paper-and-pencil personality inventories were administered to the subjects. These weret (a) the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, (b) the Allport17

PAGE 28

18 Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, and (c) the California Psychological Inventory. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) was designed to provide measures of 15 normal psychological needs (Edwards, 1959). The variables measured arei Achievement (ach). Deference (def), Order (ord). Exhibition (exh), Autonomy (aut), Affliation (aff), Intraception (int), Succorance (sue), Dominance (dom), Abasement (aba), Nurturance (nur), Change (chg), Endurance (end), Hetero_-^ sexuality (het), and Aggression (agg) (see Appendix A for a description of the variables). Statements measuring each of the 15 variables are paired twice with statements measuring each of the other variables in the EPPS. The respondent is asked to choose which of the two statements is more characteristic of himself. A high score on the measure indicates that the subject has chosen statements representative of that personality variable as being most descriptive of himself. The raw score range for each variable is zero to 28. Normative data were obtained from two groups of subjects! 1509 college students and 8963 adults of both sexes who were heads of households. The means and standard deviations of the adult normative sample are presented in Table 1.

PAGE 29

19 TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For the General Adult Sample Standard Means Deviations Variable Men Women Men Women Ac hi evement 14.79* 13.58 4.14 3.95 Deference 14.19 14.72* 3.91 3.84 Order 14.69 15.59* 4.87 4.57 Exhibition 12.75* 11.48 3.99 3.88 Autonomy 14.02* 12.10 4.38 4.11 Affiliation 14.51 17.76* 4.32 4.15 Intraception 14.18 15.28* 4.42 4.13 Sue co ranee 10.78 12.86* 4.71 4.55 Dominance 14.50* 10.24 5.27 4.73 Abasement 14.59 16.89* 5.13 4.88 Nurturance 15.67 18.48* 4.97 4.43 Change 13.87 15.99* 4.76 4.73 Endurance 16.97* 16.50 4.90 4.66 Hetero sexuality 11.21* 8.12 7.70 6.59 Aggression 13.06* 10.16 4.60 4.37 Consistency Score 11.35 11.59* 1.96 I.83 N 4031 4932 *This mean is significantly larger (at the 1 per cent level) than the corresponding mean for the opposite sex. Source 1 Edwards, 1959

PAGE 30

20 Split-half reliability coefficients were computed for the 15 measures. The scores of the 1509 normative college students were used to obtain the coefficients, which ranged from .60 to .87. Test-retest reliability coefficients (one week interval, N=89) were reported as ranging from .74 to .88. Intercorrelation of the variables was computed. The intercorrelations were generally low, indicating that the variables being measured are relatively independent. The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values (SV) was designed to measure six basic personal values or motivations (Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1970). The variables measured are Theoretical, Economic, Aesthetic, Social, Political, and Religious (see Appendix A for a description of the variables). The test was designed to measure the relative strength of the variables, with each value measured by 20 questions. A high score on one variable necessarily lowers the scores of the other variables. The scores do not represent an absolute amount of value or motivation connected with a measure, but rather their relative importance to the individual. The scores on the SV of 5894 college students were used for normative purposes. Standard deviations are presented for a portion of the group in Table 2.

PAGE 31

21 TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values For a Portion of the Normative Sample 3778 College Students 2489 Males 1289 Females Variable Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Theoretical 39.75 7.27 43.75 7.34 35.75 7.19 Economic 40.33 7.61 42.78 7.92 37.87 7.30 Aesthetic 38.88 8.42 35.09 8.49 42.67 8.34 Social 39.56 7.03 37.09 7.03 42.03 7.02 Political 40.39 6.44 42.94 6.64 37.84 6,23 Religious 41.01 9.31 38.20 9.32 43.81 9.40 Sourcet Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1970 Measures of reliability show that the internal consistency of the SV is adequate. The mean reliability coefficient, using a split-half reliability measure, is .90. Item analysis shows that each item is positively correlated with the total score for its value, significant at the .01 level of confidence. Correlation among variables is low, indicating that the values measured are relatively discrete. The California Psychological Inventory The California Psychological Inventory (CPI) was designed to measure personality traits relevant to the

PAGE 32

22 understanding and prediction of social behavior (Gough, 1969). It was designed for use with normal, socially functioning individuals. The test includes 18 scales which are intended to measure different aspects of interpersonal functioning. The traits measured are Dominance (Do), Capacity for Status (Cs), Sociability (Sy), Social Presence (Sp), Self-Acceptance (Sa), Sense of Well-Being (Wb), Responsibility (Re), Socialization (So), SelfControl (Sc), Tolerance (To), Good Impression (Gi), Communality (Cm), Achievement via Conformance (Ac), Achievement via Independence (Ai), Intellectual Efficiency (Ie), Psychological-Mindedness (Py), Flexibility (Fx), and Femininity (Fe) (see Appendix A for a description of the variables). The CPI scores of over 13,000 subjects were used for normative purposes. The group included a wide range of ages, socio-economic groups and geographical areas. Raw score means and standard deviations estimated from a table for converting CPI scores to standard scores, and from the profile sheet for the CPI are presented in Table 3. Two studies reported on test reliability. One study (N=226) reported correlation ( test-retest, one year interval) ranging from .44 to .77. The other study (N^200) reported correlations (test-retest, seven to 21 day intervals) ranging from .49 to .87. Scale intercorrelation indicates that the separate subtests measure separate personality traits as intended.

PAGE 33

23 TABLE 3 Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations Estimated From a Table For Converting CPI Scores to Standard Scores Variable Means Men Women Standard Men Deviations Women Dominance 27 27 5 5.5 Capacity for Status 19.3 20 3.6 3.6 Sociability 24.5 24.5 5 4.5 Social Presence 3^ 3^ 5.5 6 Self-Acceptance 19.3 20 3.6 3.6 Sense of Weil-Being 37.5 37.5 4 4.5 Responsibility 31 32 5 5 Socialization 36.5 39.5 6 5.5 Self-Control 31 32 7.5 7 Tolerance 23 23 4.5 4.5 Good Impression 20 20 6 6 Communality 25.2 25.8 2 2.2 Achievement via Conformance 27.5 28 4.5 4.5 Achievement via Independence 18.6 19 4.4 4 Intellectual Efficiency 39.3 39 4.6 5 Psychological Mindedness 11 11 2.8 2.8 Flexibility 9 9 3.5 3.5 Femininity 16.3 23 3.6 3.3 Sources Gough, 19 69

PAGE 34

Questionnaire A questionnaire was developed by the researcher to accompany the three personality inventories. The purpose of the questionnaire was to obtain biographical information about the subjects (see Appendix B). Procedures The data were collected from July through October, 1975. This period overlapped Summer and Fall Terms at both universities where the subjects were enrolled. During Summer Term at the University of Florida, test batteries (composed of the EPPS, SV, CPI, and questionnaire) were distributed to all faculty members of the Department of Special Education teaching classes in which special education graduate students were enrolled. The faculty members were asked to distribute the batteries to the appropriate students, collect them one week later, completed, and return them to the researcher. At Florida State University the test batteries were delivered to a faculty member of the Department of Special Education. Included with each battery was a self -addressed, stamped envelope. The batteries were handed out to the students, who were asked to return them by mail, when completed, to the researcher. A total of 6? batteries were distributed at the University of Florida, and 42 were returned. A total of 23 batteries were handed out at Florida State University, and 10 were returned. The rates of return were 63% and kj% respectively.

PAGE 35

25 At the beginning of Fall Term at the University of Florida the researcher obtained permission from all Special Education faculty members teaching classes in which special education graduate students were enrolled to attend the first class meeting of the term. At this time the research project was briefly described to the subjects and the batteries were distributed. The researcher returned to each class one week later and collected the batteries. Forty-six batteries were handed out, and 39 were returned. This rate of return was 85$. During Fall Term the researcher administered the battery to special education graduate students enrolled in three graduate courses at Florida State University. Most students finished the batteries during class time. Twenty-two batteries were handed out, and 21 were completed and returned. This rate of return was 95%, During the entire period in which data were collected, a total of 113 test batteries were distributed at the University of Florida, and 81 were returned. Forty-five batteries were distributed at Florida State University, and 31 were returned. The rates of return were 72% and 69% respectively. Research Design 11 1 1 Independent Variables There were five independent variables in the research design. They werei (a) subject's area of specialization,

PAGE 36

26 (b) degree level of subject's graduate program, (c) sex of subject, (d) age of subject, and (e) number of years subject has taught in the field of special education. Area of specialization . Subjects in this research were grouped according to their area of specialization. There were five areas included. They werei (a) Group 1, Mental Retardation (MR), (b) Group 2, Emotionally Disturbed (ED), (c) Group 3, Learning Disabilities (LD), (d) Group k. Blind and Partially Sighted (Blind), and (e) Group 5, Special Education Administration (Admin.). Degree level . Subjects in this study were enrolled in graduate programs leading to four different degrees. They weret (a) Master of Education, (b) Specialist of Education, (c) Doctor of Education, and (d) Doctor of Philosophy. They were combined into two groups: (a) Group 1, Master's, and (b) Group 2, Post-Master's. Age of subject . There were three age groupings. They were« (a) Group 1, 20-24, (b) Group 2, 25-29, and (c) Group 3. Over 30. Sex of subjects . The subjects were also grouped according to sex. The groupings werea (a) Group 1, Female and (b) Group 2, Male. Years of teaching . There were two groups used to classify the subjects according to their number of years of special education teaching experience. They were: (a) Group 1, zero years of teaching experience (Zero Years), and (b) Group 2, one or more years of teaching experience (One or More Years).

PAGE 37

Dependent Variables There were 39 dependent variables in the research design. They were the variables measured by each of the personality inventories included in the test battery. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule measures 15 variables, the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey measures six variables, and the California Psychological Inventory measures 18 variables (see Appendix A for the description of the variables). Hypotheses The null hypotheses of this study werei 1. No significant differences (p_<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups on the 39 dependent variable measures. 2. No significant differences (p_< .05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the two Degree Level groups on the 39 dependent variable measures. 3. No significant differences (p_<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the three Age groups on the 39 dependent variable measures . 4. No significant differences (p_<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the Male and Female subjects on the 39 dependent variable measures.

PAGE 38

28 5. No significant differences (p_<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects grouped according to Years of Teaching on the 39 dependent variable measures. Statistical Analysis All data analysis was performed by an IBM 370/165 computer. The subprograms used for the statistical analysis were part of the system of computer programs entitled Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975). The data were first analyzed to determine the basic distributional characteristics of the five independent variables and the 39 dependent variables. The frequencies of the independent measures were obtained using SPSS subprogram FREQUENCIES. The frequencies, means, and standard deviations of the dependent variables were obtained using SPSS subprogram CONDESCRIPTIVE. A series of one-way analysis of variance programs were run to test the null hypotheses. SPSS subprogram ONEWAY was used. When appropriate, the a posteriori contrast used was Tukey's alternative procedure, alpha = .05. Discriminant function analysis was conducted to (a) determine how the significant dependent variables related to each other, and (b) to determine their contribution to the discrimination between groups. SPSS subprogram DISCRIMINANT was used for this analysis.

PAGE 39

29 Limitations 1. The study was dependent on the use of paper-andpencil personality inventories. 2. Many subjects were "test wise." 3. The completion of the test battery was voluntary. 4. There was no control group with which to compare the results of the entire sample, 5. The number of subjects in different independent variable subgroups varied greatly.

PAGE 40

CHAPTER IV RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the data analysis. It is organized according to the statistical method used to analyze the data, and the purpose of the analysis. Distributional Characteristics of Data The means and standard deviations of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) variables for the entire sample are presented in Table k. The means and standard deviations of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values (SV) variables for the entire sample are presented in Table 5. The means and standard deviations of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) variables for the entire sample are presented in Table 6. The absolute and relative frequencies of the independent variables for the entire sample are presented in Table 7. A frequency count of the subject's years of special education administrative experience and university attended by the subject are presented for informative purposes, and are not included in any further analysis. 30

PAGE 41

31 TABLE 4 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For the Entire Sample Variable Mean Standard Deviation Achievement 16.50 4.59 Deference 10.88 3.02 Order 8.18 4.26 Exhibition 13.3? 3.80 Autonomy 14.11 3.96 Affiliation 16.77 4.23 Intraception 16.68 4.63 Succorance 12.11 4.30 Dominance 14.82 4.70 Abasement 9.27 4. 71 Nurturance 15.60 5.22 Change 18.84 4.59 Endurance 12.63 4.48 Heterosexuality 16.37 5.23 Aggression 10.58 4.56 N=112

PAGE 42

32 TABLE 5 Means and Standard Deviations of the SV Variables For the Entire Sample Variable Mean Standard Deviation Theoretical 42.19 8.57 Economic 39.79 6.83 Aesthetic 45.29 8.25 Social 41.19 8.07 Political 40.05 7.30 Religious 31.63 11.05 a N=112 Analysis of Varianc e To test the null hypothesis, one-way analysis of variance was used. This section reports the results of that analysis, and is organized according to the hypothesis tested. Hypothesis 1 No significant differences (p_<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups on the 39 dependent variable measures. The means of the 15 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables for the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups are presented in Table 8. The mean scores

PAGE 43

33 TABLE 6 Means and Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables For the Entire Sample Variable Mean Standard Deviation Dominance 30.65 5.44 Capacity for Status 21.72 3.30 Sociability 26.94 4.64 Social Presence 40. 15 5.60 Self -Acceptance 23.55 3.16 Sense of Weil-Being 37.21 4.38 Responsibility 29.49 4.25 Socialization 37.08 6.69 Self-Control 27.97 6.48 Tolerance 23.25 3.97 Good Impression 17.44 5.84 Communality 25.41 2.20 Achievement via Conformance 28.76 3.81 Achievement via Independence 22.79 3.79 Intellectual Efficiency 40.87 4.51 Psychological Mindedness 13.18 2.52 Flexibility 11.85 3.81 Femininity 20.65 4.80 N=112

PAGE 44

TABLE 7 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of the Independent Variables For the Entire Sample Absolute Relative Variable Frequency Frequency (percent) Age of Subject Group 1, 20-24 42 37.5 Group 2, 25-29 40 35.7 Group 3. Over 30 30 26.8 Sex of Subject Group 1, Female 76 67.9 Group 2, Male 36 32.1 Degree Level Group 1, Master's 73 65.2 Group 2, Post-Master's 39 34.8 Area of Specialization Group 1, MR 50 44.6 Group 2, ED 19 17. 0 Group 3, LD 26 23.2 Group 4, Blind 8 7.1 Group 5, Admin. 9 8.0 Years of Teaching Group 1, 0 years 55 49. 1 Group 2, 1 or more years 57 50.9 University of Subject Group 1, Univ. of Fla. 81 72.3 Group 2, FSU 31 27.7 Years of Administration Group 1, 0 years 94 83.9 Group 2, 1 or more years 18 16. 1 N=112

PAGE 45

35 TABLE 8 Means of the EPPS Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Variable N=50 CM N=19 T n N=26 DllllU N=8 J\. mil JL 1 1 • N=9 Achievement 15.30 18.47 17.62 15.75 16.44 Deference 11.20 10.95 10.08 11.00 11.11 Order 8.94 6.47 7.65 5.75 11.22 Exhibition 13.42 12.84 14.38 11.00 13.33 Autonomy 14.28 15.21 14.15 11.25 13.22 Affiliation 16.70 16.21 16.81 18.75 16.44 Intraception 16.76 17.37 15.23 16.00 19.56 a O UU U 1 CXI 11* c xc. , x U . W Dominance 14.82 14.84 13.69 14.75 18.11 Abasement 9.78 8.68 9.00 9.75 8.00 Nurturance 15.24 16.37 15.38 19.50 13.11 Change 18.74 19.47 19.81 16.25 17.56 Endurance 13.02 12.21 12.62 11.50 12.44 Heterosexuality 16.00 16.89 15.69 19.50 16.44 b Aggression 10.50 11.32 11.77 10.50 6.11 Mean of Group 4 significantly larger than means of Groups 1, 2, 3, and 5» £<.05. b Means of Group 2 and Group 3 significantly larger than mean of Group 5 1 p_<.05.

PAGE 46

36 of the five groups differ significantly on two dependent variable measures i Succorance and Aggression. The Succorance mean score of Group 4, Blind, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the means of Group 1, MR, Group 2, ED, Group 3, ID, and Group 5, Admin. The Aggression mean scores of Group 2, ED, and Group 3, LD, are significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean of Group 5, Admin. The standard deviations of the EPPS variables for the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups are presented in Table 9. The means and standard deviations of the six Study of Values variables for the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups are presented in Tables 10 and 11. No significant difference between these variables was found. The means of the 18 California Psychological Inventory variables for the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups are presented in Table 12. The mean scores of the five groups differ significantly on five dependent variable measures i Responsibility, Communality, Flexibility, and Femininity. The Responsibility mean scores of Group 4, Blind, and Group 5, Admin., are significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean of Group 3, LD. The Communality mean score of Group 4, Blind, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean scores of Group 1, MR, Group 2, ED, and Group 5, Admin. The Flexibility mean score of Group 2, ED, is significantly larger (p_<.05)

PAGE 47

37 TABLE 9 Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 MR ED LD Blind Admin. Variable N=50 N=19 N=26 N=8 N=9 Achievement 4.34 3.76 5.50 2.19 4.82 Deference 3.16 3.17 2.91 2.62 2.80 Order 4.51 4.22 3.27 2.43 4.58 Exhibition 4.05 4.00 3.16 2.27 4.36 Autonomy 4.34 3.39 3.92 1.58 3.73 Affiliation 3.92 4.61 3.95 5.87 4.69 Intraception 4.09 4.?6 5.28 5.50 3.54 Succoranc e it 1 r\ 4. 19 it 1 Q 4. lb 3.7° 2.9o 5.83 Dominance 4.88 3.82 4.9? 4.?4 3.92 Abasement 4.38 5.08 5.97 3.06 2.74 Nurturance 4.21 8.07 4.69 2.88 4.78 Change 4.58 5.07 3.97 4.17 5.34 Endurance 4.05 5.09 5.00 5.37 3.68 Heterosexual ity 5.76 3.97 4.74 3.07 7.07 Aggression 4.76 5.08 3.25 4.31 3.76

PAGE 48

38 TABLE 10 Means of the SV Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Variable MR ED LD Blind Admin. N=50 N=19 N=26 N=8 N=9 Theoretical 43.32 40. 79 43.35 35.50 41.44 Economic 39.08 38.79 42.15 39.25 39.44 Aesthetic 44.40 48.68 43.42 49.75 44.44 Social 41.20 42.16 40.50 42.25 40.11 Political 38.64 40.47 43.15 39.75 38.22 Religious 33.52 30.42 27.42 33.50 34.22 TABLE 11 Standard Deviations of the SV Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Variable Group 1 MR N=50 Group 2 ED N=19 Group 3 LD N=26 Group 4 Blind N=8 Group Admin N=9 Theoretical 8.70 6.66 10.43 2.45 7.00 Economic 6.97 8.15 5.58 6.25 6.64 Aesthetic 7.65 7.24 9.78 3.24 9.80 Social 7.58 10.15 8.11 2.31 10.23 Political 7.20 8.78 6.00 6.52 7.05 Religious 12.08 8.91 10.60 7.31 11.29

PAGE 49

39 TABLE 12 Means of the CPI Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 V al Id ux b Group 1 MB N=50 Group 2 T?T> av N=19 Group 3 t r\ liU N=26 Group 4 N=8 Group Acimin N=9 Dominance 31.08 29.21 29.08 33.00 33.78 Capacity for Status 21.70 22.42 21.27 22.25 21.22 Sociability 26.82 26.53 27.35 27.50 26.78 Social Presence 39.24 40.53 41.16 41.50 40.44 Self -Acceptance 23.12 23.47 23.46 24.50 25.44 Sense of WellBeing 36.98 37.16 36.69 39.25 38.22 Responsibility 29.06 30.47 27.65 32.75 32.22 Socialization 35.22 38.89 37.69 41.25 38.11 Self -Control 28.28 28.37 25.88 29.25 30.33 Tolerance 23.86 23.37 22.27 22.50 23.11 Good Impression 18.40 15.42 16.50 17.00 19.44 Communal ity b 25.00 25.16 25.73 28.00 25.11 Achievement via Conformance 28.26 28.32 28.08 32.50 30.55 Achievement via Independence 22.40 24.26 22.50 22.50 22.89 Intellectual Efficiency 41.38 41.58 39.38 42.75 39.11 Psychological Mindedness 13.26 13.89 13.04 11.75 12.89 Flexibility 0 11.74 13.84 II.69 11.00 9.44 Femininity^ 19.84 21.84 21.12 26.25 16.33

PAGE 50

40 Table 12 continued a Means of Group 4 and Group 5 significantly larger than mean of Group 3» p_<.05. b Mean of Group 4 significantly larger than means of Groups 1, 2, and 5 1 p_< .05. c Mean of Group 2 significantly larger than mean of Group 5? p_ <.05. d Mean of Group 4 significantly larger than means of Groups 1, 3, and 5i p_< .05. than the mean of Group 5, Admin. The Femininity mean score of Group 4, Blind, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean scores of Group 1, MR, Group 3, If. and Group 5, Admin. The standard deviations of the CPI variables of the five Area of Specialization groups are presented in Table 13. Hypothesis 2 No significant differences (p_<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the two Degree Level groups on the 39 dependent variable measures. The means and standard deviations of the 15 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables for the subjects in the two Degree Level groups are presented in Table 14. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on five dependent variable measures i Achievement, Order, Dominance, Abasement, and Nurturance. The Achievement mean score for Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly

PAGE 51

41 TABLE 13 Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables For Area of Specialization Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Variable Group 1 MR N=50 Group 2 ED N=19 Group 3 LD N=26 Group 4 Blind N=8 Group Admii N=9 Dominance 4.90 7.66 4.86 4.34 3.19 capacity ior Status 3.40 2.69 3.53 2.05 4.35 Sociability 3.71 5.98 5.66 3.82 4.44 Social Presence 6.07 4.59 6.15 3.82 4.53 S el f Acc ep tanc e 2.87 3.03 3.43 3.74 3.54 Sense of WeilBeing ll R"5 H-.OJ Ll o£ H , CO ii 1 A 10 <£. 31 Ll 1 C f. 15 n esponsi oxx ixy Of 1 Q1 Socialization 4.47 8.64 8.98 4.03 3.86 Self-Control 6.68 6.53 6.43 3.49 7.09 loierance **.33 ii r\a "1 Ac 3. o5 3. 59 Good Impression 6.24 5.27 5.66 2.62 6.58 Communal ity 2.59 1.60 1.66 0.00 1.83 Achievement via Conformance 4.06 3.00 3.96 0.93 3.21 Achievement via Independence 4.46 2.33 3.93 1.77 2.71 Intellectual Efficiency 4.84 4.35 4.54 1.91 3.33 Psychological Mindedness 2.72 2.18 2.75 0.46 2.20 Flexibility 4.18 3.99 3.18 0.00 3.21 Femininity 4.30 4.74 4.50 0.89 5.63

PAGE 52

42 TABLE 14 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For Degree Level Groups 1 and 2 Mean Standard Deviation Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Variable Master's Post-Master's Master's Post-Master's N=73 N=39 Achievement 15.58 18.23** 4.30 4.66 Deference 10.55 11 .49* 3. 17 2. 65 Order 7.60 9.26 4.22 4.18 Exhibition 12.86 14.31 3. 51 4. 19 Autonomy 14.40 13. 56 3.95 3.98 Affiliation 17.14 16.08 4.51 3.59 Intraception 17.18 15.74 4.64 4.53 Succorance 12.58 11.23 4.07 4.63 Dominance 13.52 17.26*** 4.43 4.27 Abasement 10.04* 7.82 4.76 4.30 Nur turanc e 16.88*** 13.21 5.08 4.67 Change 19.14 18.28 4.34 5.03 Endurance 12.08 13.67 4.58 4.14 Heterosexual ity 16.28 16.51 5.07 5.59 Aggression 10.38 10.95 4.65 4.42 *£ < . 05 **£ < . 01 ***£< .001

PAGE 53

43 larger (p_^.01) than the mean score for Group 1, Master's. The Order mean score for Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean score for Group 1, Master's. The Dominance mean score for Group 2, PostMaster's, is significantly larger (p_<.001) than the mean score for Group 1, Master's. The Abasement mean score for Group 1, Master's, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean score for Group 2, Post-Master's. The Nurturance mean score for Group 1, Master's, is significantly greater (p_<.001) than the mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's. The means and standard deviations of the six Study of Values variables for the subjects in the two Degree Level groups are presented in Table 15. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on two dependent variable measures i Theoretical and Social. The Theoretical mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly greater (p_<.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Master's. The Social mean score of Group 1, Master's, is significantly greater (j><.05) than the mean score of Group 2, PostMaster's. The means and standard deviations of the 18 California Psychological Inventory variables for the subjects in the two Degree Level groups are presented in Table 16. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on six dependent variable measures i Dominance, Socialization, Self-Control, Good Impression, Achievement via Conformance, and Femininity. The Dominance mean score of Group 2,

PAGE 54

44 TABLE 15 Means and Standard Deviations of the SV Variables For Degree Level Groups 1 and 2 Mean Standard Deviation Variable Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Master' s PostMaster ' s PostMaster ' s Master's N=73 N=39 in eorexicaj. 40.73 44.92* 7.98 9.07 Economic 39.19 40.90 6.59 7.21 Aesthetic ^5.63 44.64 8.15 8.51 Social 42.51* 38.72 8.03 7.65 Political 39.40 41.26 7.34 7.16 Religious 33.07 28.95 10.88 11.00 *£<.05 Post-Master's, is significantly larger (p_<.01) than the mean score of Group 1, Master's. The Socialization mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly larger (E<.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Master's. The Self -Control mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Master's. The Good Impression mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Master's. The Achievement via Conformance mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's, is significantly larger (p<.01) than the mean score of Group 1,

PAGE 55

45 TABLE 16 Means and Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables For Degree Level Groups 1 and 2 Mean Standard Deviation Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Variable Master's PostMaster's PostMaster's Master's N=73 N=39 Dominance 29.52 32.77** 5.71 4.18 Capacity for Status 21.51 22.13 3.27 3.37 Sociability 26.70 27.38 4.80 4.34 Social Presence 40.30 39.87 5.68 5.50 Self -Acceptance 23.33 23.95 3.11 3.26 Sense of Weil-Being 36.78 38.00 4.75 3.50 Responsibility 29.23 29.97 3.93 4.80 Socialization 36.10 38.92* 5.22 8.59 Self -Control 26.93 29.92* 6.22 6.58 Tolerance 22.99 23.74 4.08 3.77 Good Impression 16.38 19.4l»* 5.47 6.08 Communal ity 25.^8 25.28 2.20 2.24 Achievement via Conformance 28.04 30.10* 3.97 3.14 Achievement via Independence 22.66 23.03 3.76 3.87 Intellectual Efficiency 40.82 40.95 4.52 4.55 Psychological Mindedness 12.90 13.69 2.50 2.51 Flexibility 11.97 11.62 3.87 3.74 Femininity 21.67* 18.74 4.17 5.36 *p.<.05 **p_<.01

PAGE 56

46 Masters. The Femininity mean score of Group 1, Master's, is significantly larger (p_<.01) than the mean score of Group 2, Post-Master's. Hypothesis 3 No significant differences (p_<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the three Age groups on the 39 dependent variable measures. The means of the 15 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables for the subjects in the three Age groups are presented in Table 17. The mean scores of the three groups differ significantly on seven dependent variable measures! Achievement, Deference, Dominance, Abasement, Nurturance, Endurance, and Aggression. The Achievement mean score of Group 2, 25-29, is significantly larger (p_<.001) than the mean score of Group 1, 20-24. The Deference mean scores of Group 2, 24-29, and Group 3, Over 30, are significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean score of Group 1, 20-24. The Dominance mean scores of Group 2, 25-29, and Group 3. Over 30, are significantly larger (p_<.01) than the mean score of Group 1, 20-24. The Abasement mean score of Group 1, 20-24, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean score of Group 3, Over 30. The Nurturance mean score of Group 1, 20-24, is significantly larger (p_<.01) than the mean scores of Group 2, 25-29, and Group 3 , Over 30. The Endurance

PAGE 57

47 TABLE 17 Means of the EPPS Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 Variable Group 1 20-24 N=42 Group 2 25-29 N=40 Group 3 Over 30 N=30 Achievement* 14.83 18.48 16.20 Defer ence b 9.83 11.40 11.63 Order 8.10 8.08 8.43 Exhibition 13.33 13.35 13.^3 Autonomy 14.17 14.48 13.53 Affiliation 17.52 16.33 16.30 Intraception 17.45 15.50 17.17 Succorance 12.86 11.55 11.80 Dominance 0 13.07 15.78 16.00 Abasement** 10.69 8.78 7.93 Nurturance e 17.81 14.08 I*. 53 Change 19.90 18.13 18.30 f Endurance 11.07 14.05 12.93 Heterosexuality 16.48 16.20 16.43 Aggression 6 9.17 11.85 10.87 Mean of Group 2 significantly larger than mean of Group li p_<.001. * b Means of Group 2 and Group 3 significantly larger than mean of Group li p_<.05. c Means of Group 2 and Group 3 significantly larger than mean of Group li p_<.01.

PAGE 58

48 Table 17 continued d Mean of Group 1 significantly larger than mean of Group 3i p_< .05. e Means of Group 2 and Group 3 significantly larger than mean of Group 1; p_<,01. f Mean of Group 2 significantly larger than mean of Group lj p_ < .01. g Mean of Group 2 significantly larger than mean of Grouo It £< .05. mean score of Group 2, 25-29, is significantly larger (£< .05) than the mean score of Group 1, 20-24. The standard deviations of the EPPS variables for the subjects in the three Age groups are presented in Table 18. The means and standard deviations of the six Study of Values variables for the subjects in the three Age groups are presented in Tables 19 and 20. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on three dependent variable measures t Theoretical, Economic, and Social. The Theoretical mean score of Group 2, 25-29, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean score of Group 1, 20-24. The Economic mean score of Group 2, 2529, is significantly larger (p_<.01) than the mean scores of Group 1, 20-24, and Group 3, Over 30. The Social mean score of Group 1, 20-24, is significantly larger (p_<.01) than the mean scores of Group 2, 25-29, and Group 3, Over 30. The means of the 18 California Psychological Inventory variables for the subjects in the three Age groups

PAGE 59

49 TABLE 18 Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 Variable uroup i 20-24 IN -tt vji OUp C 25-29 IN — *tVJ Lr I UUp J Over 30 IN — _} W Achievement 4.17 4.21 4.77 Deference 3.23 2.71 2.80 Order 4.22 4.26 4.45 Exhibition 3.84 4.24 3.21 Autonomy 3.67 3.95 4.41 Affiliation 4.91 3.46 4.11 Intraception 3.83 5.62 3.97 Sue co ranee 4.4? 3.92 4.54 Dominance 4.94 4.20 4.39 Abasement 4.81 5.51 2.48 Nurturance 4.41 5.29 5.27 Change 3.55 4.71 5.50 Endurance 4.70 4.49 3.47 H et ero s exual i ty 4.85 4.92 6.24 Aggression 4.31 4.01 5.15

PAGE 60

50 TABLE 19 Means of the SV For Age Groups 1, Variables 2, and 3 Variable Group 1 20-24 N=42 Group 2 25-29 N=40 Group 3 Over 30 N=30 o ill GUI cliLdl . < o unum i L. JO.*) Aesthetic 45.86 44.98 44.90 Social 0 44.52 38.68 39.8? Political 39.40 40.50 40.33 Religious 32.57 29.38 33.33 Mean of Group 2 significantly larger than mean of Group li £<.05. b Mean of Group 2 significantly larger than means of Group 1 and Group 3t p_ < .01. °Mean of Group 1 significantly larger than means of Group 2 and Group 3j £< .01. are presented in Table 21. The mean scores of the three groups differ significantly on one dependent variable measure* Femininity. The Femininity mean score of Group 1, 20-24, is significantly greater than the mean score of Group 3, Over 30. The standard deviations of the CPI variables for the subjects in the three Age groups are presented in Table 22.

PAGE 61

51 TABLE 20 Standard Deviations of the SV Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 Variable Group 1 20-24 N=42 Group 2 25-29 N=40 Group 3 Over 30 N=30 Theoretical 8.01 8.86 8.35 Economic 6.95 6.34 6.43 Aesthetic 8.05 8.43 8.53 Social 7.83 7.29 8.05 Political 6.79 7.42 7.98 Religious 11.88 9.56 11.56 Hypothesis 4 No significant differences (p_<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the Male and Female subjects on the 39 dependent variable measures. The means and standard deviations of the 15 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables for the Female and Male subjects are presented in Table 23. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on seven dependent variable measures i Autonomy, Intraception, Succorance, Dominance, Nurturance, Change, and Heterosexuality. The Autonomy mean score of Group 2, Male, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Female. The Intraception mean score of Group 1, Female,

PAGE 62

52 TABLE 21 Means of the CPI Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 Variable Group 1 20-24 N=42 Group 2 25-29 N=40 Group 3 Over 30 N=30 LJ\J ill X I Lui 1 ^ C cy . OU 30.95 31.73 L/d.pacixy i or oxaxus oi n a 22. 05 21.93 •^n r> i 9 hi 1 i -fir OO O /"\ 27.30 27.07 *fU. 30 39.70 o exi — Ate epxanc e 23. 1/ 00 ao 23.93 23.57 oense 01 weix-ceing 37. 07 35.90 38.30 t\ cspon&iuiiixy 29.40 2o. 03 30.50 Socialization 37.50 37.08 36.50 Self-Control 28.00 27.15 29.03 Jul cl a lie 6 22,73 24. 13 10.90 lo, 02 19.27 Coramunality 25.74 25.63 24.67 Achievement via v/om oi uiance 20,02 28,98 29.50 Achievement via Independence 23.19 22-2*5 22 0T Intellectual Efficiency 40.64 40.05 42.27 Psychological Mindedness 13.00 13.38 13.17 Flexibility 12.48 11.73 11.13 Femininity a 22.48 20.08 18.87 Mean of Group 1 significantly larger than mean of Group 3t

PAGE 63

53 TABLE 22 Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables For Age Groups 1, 2, and 3 Variable Group 1 20-24 N=42 Group 2 25-29 N=40 Group 3 Over 30 N=30 Dominance 5.17 4.79 6.45 Capacity for Status 3.55 2.93 3.44 Sociability 4.58 4.91 4.46 Social Presence 6.22 5.01 5.58 Self-Acceptance 2.93 3.79 2.54 Sense of Well -Being 4.40 4.38 4.04 Responsibility 3.84 4.11 4.87 Socialization 4.48 9. 50 4 57 Self-Control 6.59 5.89 7.10 Tolerance 4.32 3.61 3.92 Good Impression 4.93 5.88 6.71 Communal! ty 1.67 2 2Q Achievement via Conformance 4.36 3.04 3.86 Achievement via Independence 3.83 3.32 4.32 Intellectual Efficiency 4.22 4.00 5.30 Psychological Mindedness 2.26 2.80 2.53 Flexibility 4.06 2.91 4.46 Femininity 3.93 4.94 5.00

PAGE 64

54 TABLE 23 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables For Females and Males variable Mean Group 1 Female N=76 Group 2 Male N=36 Standard Group 1 Female Deviation Group 2 Male Achievement 16.09 17. 36 4 31 Deference IO.83 10.97 3. 17 2 72 Order 7.95 8.67 4. 38 4 no Exhibition 13.18 13.75 3. 87 3 68 Autonomy 13.59 15.19* 3.79 Affiliation 17.07 16.14 4. 37 3 89 Intraception 17.30* 15.36 4. 58 Succorance 13.04*** 10.14 4.19 3.90 Dominance 13.86 16.86** 4.38 4 78 ** vu 0 will Ci I \j ft 10 0, 19 4. ol 4.34 Nurturance 16.55** 13.58 5.03 5.U Change 19.42* 17.61 4.36 4.88 Endurance 12.29 13.36 4.72 3.89 Heterosexuality 15.58 18.03* 4.99 5.41 Aggression 10.04 11.72 4.61 4.28 *p_< .05 **£< .01 ***£ < . 001

PAGE 65

55 is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean score of Group 2, Male. The Succorance mean score of Group I, Female, is significantly larger (p_<.001) than the mean score of Group 2, Male. The Dominance mean score of Group 2, Male, is significantly larger (p_<.01) than the mean score of Group 1, Female. The Nurturance mean score of Group 1, Female, is significantly larger (p<.01) than the mean score of Group 2, Male. The Change mean score of Group 1, Female, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean score of Group 2, Male. The Heterosexuality mean score of Group 2, Male, is significantly larger (£<.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Female. The means and standard deviations of the six Study of Values variables for the Female and Male subjects are presented in Table 24. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on three dependent variable measures! Theoretical, Political, and Religious. The Theoretical mean score of Group 2, Males, is significantly larger (p_<.001) than the mean score of Group 1, Female. The Political mean score of Group 2, Male, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Female. The Religious mean score of Group 1, Female, is significantly larger (p.<.01) than the mean score of Group 2, Male. The means and standard deviations of the 18 California Psychological Inventory variables for the Female and Male subjects are presented in Table 25. The mean

PAGE 66

56 TABLE 24 Means and Standard Deviations of the SV Variables For Females and Males Mean Standard Deviation variable Group 1 Female N=?6 Group 2 Male N=36 Group 1 Female Group 2 Male Theoretical 40.18 46.42*** 8.30 7.64 Economic 39.11 41.22 6.32 7.69 Aesthetic 46.16 43.44 7.94 8.70 Social 43.14 39.17 7.83 8.31 Political 39.03 42.19** 6.98 7.57 Religious 33.70* 27.28 10.81 10.39 *P_<.05 **p_< .01 ***p_< .001 scores of the two groups differ significantly on two dependent variable measures! Responsibility and Femininity. The Responsibility mean score and the Femininity mean score of Group 1, Female, are significantly larger (p_<.001) than the mean scores of Group 2, Male. Hypothesis 5 No significant differences (p_<.05)will exist between the mean scores of the subjects grouped according to Years of Teaching on the 39 dependent variable measures.

PAGE 67

57 TABLE 25 Means and Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables For Females and Males Variable Mean Group 1 Female N=76 Group 2 Male N=36 Standard Group 1 Female Deviation Group 2 Male Dominance 30. 01 32. 00 5.86 4. 18 Capacity for Status 22. 04 21 . 06 3 44 2.91 Sociability 27. 13 26. 53 4.86 4 16 Social Presence 39.93 40. 6l 5.93 4.87 Self -Acceptance 23.36 23.94 3. 19 3 10 Sense of Weil-Being 37.47 36.64 4.4l 4 31 Responsibility 30. 39* 27. 58 3.95 4.26 Socialization 37.46 36.28 5.12 9.21 Self-Control 28.17 27.56 6.44 6.63 Tolerance 23.47 22.78 4.24 3 34 Good Impression 17.34 17.64 6.08 5.39 Communal ity 25.62 24.97 1.85 2.79 Achievement via Conformance 28.78 28.72 3.91 3.65 Achievement via Independence 22.92 22.50 4.11 3.02 All b C-L X ct/ lual Efficiency 41.01 40.56 4.15 5.24 Psychological Mindedness 13.00 13.55 2.46 2.63 Flexibility 11.55 12.47 3.91 3.57 Femininity 22.68* 16.36 3.40 4.53 *p_<.001

PAGE 68

58 The means and standard deviations of the 15 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables for the subjects grouped according to years of special education teaching experience are presented in Table 26. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on one dependent variable measure i Deference. The Deference mean score of Group 2, One or More Years, is significantly larger (£<.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Zero Years. The means and standard deviations of the six Study of Values variables for the subjects grouped according to years of special education teaching experience are presented in Table 27. There are no significant differences between the groups on these variables. The means and standard deviations of the 18 California Psychological Inventory variables for the subjects grouped according to years of special education teaching experience are presented in Table 28. The mean scores of the two groups differ significantly on two dependent variable measures i Dominance and Achievement via Conformance. The Dominance mean score of Group 2, One or More Years, is significantly larger (p_<.05) than the mean score of Group 1, Zero Years. The Achievement via Conformance mean score of Group 2, One or More Years, is significantly larger (p_<.01) than the mean score of Group 1, Zero Years.

PAGE 69

59 TABLE 26 Means and Standard Deviations of the EPPS Variables Teaching Groups 1 and
PAGE 70

6o TABLE 27 Means and Standard Deviations of the SV Variables For Years of Teaching Groups 1 and 2 Mean O Let I lLUli U nttvi 51 + 1 r\Y\ jjtrvxd lion veil, ia ui c Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 0 yrs 1 or more u yrs i ui mo i 1 teaching teaching »« j j N=^7 n—j f Theoretical 42.87 41.53 9.94 7.03 Economic 39.47 40.12 7.05 6.66 Aesthetic if 5. 84 44.75 8.60 7.94 Social 42.22 40.19 9.23 6.71 Political 40.20 39.89 7.70 6.96 Religious 30.2? 32.95 10.62 11.39 Discriminant Function Analysis Only those dependent variables that were found to differ statistically between groups were included in the discriminant function analysis. These variables were analyzed to determine their relative contribution to the discrimination between groups. The six dependent variables that were found to differ significantly (p_<.05) between the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups werei Succorance and Aggression (EPPS)i and Responsibility, Communality, Flexibility, and Femininity (CPI). Their standardized discriminant function coefficients are presented in Table 29.

PAGE 71

61 TABLE 28 Means and Standard Deviations of the CPI Variables For Years of Teaching Groups 1 and 2 Mean Group 1 Group 2 0 yrs, 1 or more teaching N=55 N=57 Standard Deviation Group 1 Group 2 0 yrs. 1 or more teaching Variable Dominance 29.40 Capacity for Status 21.4? Sociability 26.40 Social Presence 40.29 Self-Acceptance 23.42 Sense of Weil-Being 36.84 Responsibility 28.78 Socialization 37.04 Self -Control 27.04 Tolerance 23.05 Good Impression 16.36 Communality 25.33 Achievement via Conformance 27.75 Achievement via Independence 22.80 Intellectual Efficiency 41.24 Psychological Mindedness 13.07 Flexibility 12.53 Femininity 20.76 31.86* 5.94 4.64 21.96 3.60 2.99 27.46 4.60 4,66 40.02 5.32 5.90 23.67 2.93 3.39 37.56 4.45 4.32 30.18 3.90 4.48 37. 12 5.90 7.42 28.88 6.70 6.18 23.44 4.62 3.27 18.47 6.00 5.54 25.49 2.01 2.39 29.74** 3.99 3.38 22.77 4.06 3.54 40.51 4.83 4.18 13.28 2.82 2.21 11.19 4.20 3.30 20.54 4.50 5.11 *£ < . 05 **p_<.01

PAGE 72

62 TABLE 29 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients Area of Specialization Variable Coefficient EPPS Succorance Aggression CPI Responsibility Communal ity Flexibility Femininity The coefficients represent the relative contribution of the variables to the function (Nie et al., 1975). The results are statistically significant (p_<.001). The group centroids are presented in Table 30. These figures indicate how far the groups are along the dimension being used to discriminate between the groups (Nie et al., 1975). The 13 dependent variables that were found to differ significantly (p_<.05) between the subjects in the two Degree Level groups werei Achievement, Order, Dominance, Abasement, and Nurturance (EPPS), Theoretical and Social (SV), and Dominance, Socialization, Self-Control, Good -0.14 -0.41 0.09 -0.34 -0.28 -0.65

PAGE 73

63 TABLE 30 Centroids of Groups Area of Specialization Group Centroid Group 1 MR 0.19 Group 2 ED -0.30 Group 3 LD -0.26 Grouo 4 Blind Group 5 Admin. 1.33 Impression, Achievement via Conformance, and Femininity (CPI). The standardized discriminant function coefficients are presented in Table 31. The results are statistically significant (p_<.001). The group centroids are presented in Table 32. The 11 dependent variables that were found to differ significantly (p_<.05) between the subjects in the three Age groups werei Achievement, Deference, Dominance, Abasement, Nurturance, Endurance, and Aggression (EPPS), Theoretical, Economic, and Aesthetic (SV), and Femininity (CPI). The standardized discriminant function coefficients are presented in Table 33. The group centroids are presented in Table 34.

PAGE 74

64 TABLE 31 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients Degree Level Variable Coefficient EPPS Achievement -0.26 Order -0.20 Dominance -0.20 Abasement 0.03 Nurturance 0.46 SV Theoretical -0.10 Social 0.05 CPI Dominance -0.34 Socialization -0.23 Self-Control -0.12 Good Impression -0.08 Achievement via Conformance -0.14 Femininity 0.1 6

PAGE 75

TABLE 32 Centroids of Groups Degree Level Group Centroid Group 1 Master's 0.48 Group 2 Post-Master's -0.90 TABLE 33 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients Age Variable Coefficient EPPS Achievement 0.34 Deference 0.44 Dominance 0.34 Abasement Theoretical Economic 0.39 Nurturance -0.20 Endurance 0.45 Aggression 0.34 SV •0.13 0.09 Aesthetic -0,42 CPI Femininity -0.27

PAGE 76

66 TABLE 3^ Centroids of Groups Age Group Centroid Group 1 20-24 Group 2 25-29 Group 3 Over 30 -1.08 0.72 0.56 The 12 dependent variables that were found to differ significantly (p_ ^.05) between the Male and Femals subjects werei Autonomy, Intraception, Succorance, Dominance, Nurturance, Change, and Heterosexuality (EPPS)} Theoretical, Political, and Religious (SV); and Responsibility and Femininity (CPI). The standardized discriminant function coefficients are presented in Table 35. The results are statistically significant (p_<.001). The group centroids are presented in Table 36. The three dependent variables that were found to differ significantly (£< .05) between the subjects who had no special education teaching experience and those who had one or more years of experience werei Deference (EPPS) j and Dominance and Achievement via Conformance (CPI). The standardized discriminant function coefficients are presented in Table 37. The group centroids are presented in Table 38.

PAGE 77

6? TABLE 35 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients Sex Variable Coefficient EPPS Autonomy 0.05 Intraception -0.19 Succorance -0.3? Dominance -0.01 Nur turanc e 0 . 07 Change -0.52 Hetero sexuality 0.34 SY Theoretical 0.06 Political -0.06 Religious -0.29 CPI Responsibility -0.10 Femininity -0.87

PAGE 78

TABLE 36 Centroids of Groups Sex Group Centroid Group 1 Female Group 2 Male -O.69 1.46 TABLE 37 Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients Years of Teaching Variable Coefficient EPPS Deference 0.72 CPI Dominance 0.80 Achievement via Conformance 0.54

PAGE 79

69 TABLE 38 Centroids of Groups Years of Teaching Group Centroid Group 1 0 years -0.33 Group 2 1 or more years 0.32

PAGE 80

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The interpretation of the results is presented in the first section of this chapter. The results are then related to the research reviewed in Chapter II. A discussion of the original research problem and its relationship to the results of this study are included in the Conclusions section. Implications of this study are considered, as are suggestions for further research. The chapter concludes with a brief summary of the study. Discussion The first objective of this study was to generate an initial personality profile of people who have chosen special education as a profession. To achieve this objective the researcher converted the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and California Psychological Inventory mean raw scores of the subjects into standard scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. These standard scores are presented in Tables 39 and 40. None of the standard scores of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables deviates from the mean by as much as one standard deviation. This indicates that 70

PAGE 81

71 TABLE 39 Standard Scores of the EPFS Variables For the Entire Sample Variable Females Males Achievement 57 53 Deference 46 49 Order 45 47 Exhibition 46 49 Autonomy 52 51 Affiliation 49 52 Intraception 49 48 U ^ U U 1 CL J 11* Dominance 50 49 Abasement 40 41 Nurturance 51 50 Change 54 55 Endurance 49 51 Heterosexuality 53 51 Aggression 49 48 the mean scores of this sample can be interpreted as average (Edwards, 1959). Several of the standard scores of the California Personality Inventory variables deviate from the mean by slightly more than one standard deviation. The mean

PAGE 82

72 TABLE 40 Standard Scores of the CPI Variables For the Entire Sample Variable Females Males Dominance 56 60 Capacity for Status 55 54 Sociability 55 55 Social Presence 60 63 Self-Acceptance 58 63 Sense of Well-Being 49 49 Responsibility 46 44 Socialization 45 49 Self-Control 44 46 Tolerance 38 39 Good Impression 36 40 Communality 60 58 Achievement via Conformance 52 53 Achievement via Independence 60 60 Intellectual Efficiency • 54 54 Psychological Mindedness 57 61 Flexibility 59 59 Femininity 50 49

PAGE 83

73 scores of the variables that were found to be more than one standard deviation above the mean arei Social Presence, Self-Acceptance, and Achievement via Independence. The variables that are more than one standard deviation below the mean arei Tolerance and Good Impression. Based on these results, these subjects tend to be seen as poised, spontaneous, and self-confident in personal and social interactions. They possess a strong sense of personal worth, and are demanding and aggressive. They have a definite capacity for independent thinking and action, and their achievement is facilitated in settings where autonomy and independence are seen as positive behaviors. The subjects tend to be seen as disbelieving and distrustful in personal and social outlook, and intolerant of other people's social beliefs and attitudes. At the same time, they are not concerned about how others react to them (Gough, 1969). In order to interpret the Study of Values mean raw scores, they were compared to the norms presented in the SV Manual (Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1970). Three mean scores exceed the range of 50% of all normative scores on that value. These are presented in Table 4l. The male and female Religious mean scores are both definitely low, and the male Aesthetic mean score is definitely high. The low Religious scores indicate a lack of interest in religion and religious experiences. The high Aesthetic score indicates the subjects tend toward individualism

PAGE 84

74 TABLE 41 Means of the SV Variables For the Entire Sample Variable Females Males 46.42 41.22 43.44 a 39.17 42.19 27.28 a "Scores exceed the range of 50% of all scores on that value. and self-sufficiency, and have a high degree of interest in artistic aspects of life. Hypothesis 1: Area of Specialization Based on the results of the analysis of variance, Hypothesis 1 was rejected. The hypothesis wasi No significant differences (p_<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the five Area of Specialization groups on the 39 dependent variable measures. The six dependent variables that differ significantly between the five groups arei Succorance and Aggression (EPPS)i and Responsibility, Communality, Flexibility, and Femininity (CPI). in descending order of their contribution to the Theoretical 40.18 Economic 39.11 Aesthetic 46.16 Social 43.14 Political 39.33 Religious 33.70 a

PAGE 85

discrimination between the groups they arei Femininity, Aggression, Communality, Flexibility, Succorance, and Responsibility. The researcher chose not to include Succorance and Responsibility in the interpretation because of their low discriminant function coefficients. The mean score of the subjects whose area of specialization is the Blind and Partially Sighted is significantly higher than the mean scores of the subjects whose areas of specialization are Mental Retardation and Learning Disabilities on the CPI Femininity variable. Based on these results, the Blind subjects tend to be seen as more gentle, moderate, and sympathetic than the Mental Retardation and Learning Disabilities subjects (Gough, 1969). This high mean score could be a result of the sex of the subjects in the Blind group. Six of the eight subjects were women. This could skew the results so that a statistically real difference was due to a sampling bias. The mean score of the Blind group is significantly higher than the subjects whose areas of specialization are Mental Retardation, Emotional Disturbance, and Administration on the CPI Communality variable. Based on these results, the Blind group tends to be seen as more moderate, patient, and sincere than the Mental Retardation, Emotional Disturbance, and Administration subjects (Gough, 1969). The mean scores of the subjects whose areas of specialization are the Emotionally Disturbed and Learning

PAGE 86

76 Disabled are significantly higher on the EPPS Aggression variable than the Administration subjects. Based on these results the Administration subjects are less likely to attack contrary points of view, criticize others publicly, and blame others when things go wrong (Edwards, 1959). The Administration group scored significantly lower on the CPI Flexibility variable than the group of subjects whose area of specialization is the Emotionally Disturbed. Based on these results, the Administration subjects tend to be seen as more deliberate, methodical, and more deferential to authority, custom, and tradition (Gough, 1969). Interpretation of the group centroids shows that the subjects whose areas of specialization are Administration and Blind differ significantly from each other on these variables. The subjects whose areas of specialization are the Emotionally Disturbed and Learning Disabled are almost identical when these variables are used to compare them, and the Mental Retardation subjects are very similar to these two groups. The researcher suggests that the differences between the groups be interpreted with caution. The number of subjects whose areas of specialization are the Blind and Partially Sighted and Administration were both very small (eight and nine, respectively). All significant differences between the five groups involved these two groups. Considering the indication that the scores of the subjects whose areas of specialization were the Emotionally Disturbed,

PAGE 87

77 Learning Disabled, and Mentally Retarded were all very similar on these variable measures, it is possible that if the number of subjects in the other two groups were larger, there would be no significant differences between all five groups. On the other hand, the possibility exists that an increase in the number of subjects would confirm the findings. Hypothesis 2i Degree Level Based on the results of the analysis of variance, Hypothesis 2 was rejected. The hypothesis was: No significant differences (p_<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the two Degree Level groups on the 39 dependent variable measures. The 13 dependent variables that differ significantly between the two groups are i Achievement, Order, Dominance, Abasement, Nurturance (EPPS)i Theoretical and Social (SV)j and Dominance, Socialization, Self-Control, Good Impression, Achievement via Conformance, and Femininity (CPI). In descending order of their contribution to the discrimination between the groups, they arei Nurturance, Dominance, Achievement, Socialization, Order, Dominance, Femininity, Achievement via Conformance, Self-Control, Good Impression, Theoretical, Social, and Abasement. The researcher chose not to include the last seven variables in the interpretation because of their low discriminant function coefficients. Based on the results, the following interpretation can be made. The Master's group tends to feel a greater

PAGE 88

78 need to assist others less fortunate than themselves, to be sympathetic and understanding and to show affection toward others. The Post-Master's group tends to be seen as having more leadership ability, dominance, persistence and social initiative. They feel a greater need to argue for their point of view, be the leader in groups to which they belong, and to persuade others to do what they want. The Post-Master's group feels a greater need to be success ful, to be recognized authorities, to accomplish tasks of great significance, and to be able to do things better than others. They tend to have written work neat and orderly, to be well organized, and to have things arranged so they run smoothly without change. The Post-Master's group tends to be more serious, conscientious and responsible, and may be seen as self-denying and conforming (Edwards, 1959; Gough, 1969). This profile of the Post-Master's group seems to conform to the popularly held view of the dominant, aggressive, achievement oriented doctoral student. The Master's group is closer to the norm on all these variables than the Post-Master's group. Hypothesis 3t Age Based on the results of the analysis of variance, Hypothesis 3 was rejected. The hypothesis wasi No significant differences (p_<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects in the three Age groups on the 39

PAGE 89

79 dependent variable measures. The 11 variables that differ significantly between the three groups arei Achievement, Deference, Dominance, Abasement, Nurturance, Endurance, Aggression (EPPS); Theoretical, Economic, Aesthetic (SV)j and Femininity (CPI). In descending order of their contribution to the discrimination between the groups they arei Endurance, Deference, Aesthetic, Abasement, Achievement, Dominance, Aggression, Femininity, Nurturance, Theoretical, and Economic, The researcher chose not to include the last two variables in the interpretation because of their low discriminant function coefficients. Based on the mean scores of the groups, the following interpretation can be made. The younger group (age 20-24) feels a lesser need to keep at a job until it is finished or to work hard at a task than the middle group (age 25-29), and they feel more timid in the presence of superiors than does the older group (30 and over). The older group feels a greater need to do their best, to accomplish tasks requiring skill, to attack contrary points of view, and to criticize others than the younger group. Both the middle and older groups feel a greater need to get suggestions from others, to follow instructions, and to do what is expected of them, while at the same time they feel a need to persuade and influence others to do what they want, and to direct the action of others. The older group tends to be seen as more blunt and direct in thinking and action, and manipulative in dealing with others (Edwards, 1959 j Gough, 1969).

PAGE 90

80 The group centroids show that the middle and older groups are very similar to each other in terms of these variable measures. Both groups differ significantly from the younger group. There are similarities between the middle and older groups and the Post-Masters group, and the Masters group and the younger group. An obvious reason for this would be the positive correlation between age and degree level. The younger subjects would be more likely to be in a Masters program, and the older subjects would be more likely to be in a Post-Masters program. Hypothesis 4t Sex Based on the results of the analysis of variance, Hypothesis k was rejected. The hypothesis wasi No significant differences (£<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the Male and Female subjects on the 39 dependent variable measures. The 12 variables that differ significantly between the two groups arei Autonomy, Intraception, Succorance, Dominance, Nurturance, Change, Hetero sexuality (EPPS), Theoretical, Political, Religious (SV), R esponsibility, and Femininity (CPI). In descending order of their contribution to the discrimination between the groups they arei Femininity, Change, Succorance, Religious, Intraception, Responsibility, Nurturance, Theoretical, Political, Autonomy, and Dominance. The researcher chose not to include the last seven variables in the interpretation because of their low discriminant function coefficients.

PAGE 91

81 Based on these results, the following interpretation can be made. The females have significantly more feminine interests than males. They are seen as more patient, gentle, and sincere. They have a greater need to have others provide help when in trouble and to seek encouragement from others. They feel a greater need to understand how others feel about problems and to judge people by why they do things, rather than by what they do. The females feel a greater need to experience novelty and change in daily routine and to experiment and try new things. They are also more religious than the males (Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1970; Edwards, 1959; Gough, 1969). Hypothesis 5t Years of Teaching Based on the results of the analysis of variance, Hypothesis 5 was rejected. The hypothesis was» No significant differences (p_<.05) will exist between the mean scores of the subjects grouped according to Years of Teach ing on the 39 dependent variable measures. The three vari ables that differ significantly between the two groups are* Deference (EPPS)i and Dominance and Achievement via Conformance (CPI). In descending order of their contribution to the discrimination between the groups they arei Dominance, Deference, and Achievement via Conformance. Based on the results, those subjects with one or more years of special education teaching experience have a greater need to follow instructions and to do what is

PAGE 92

82 expected of them, to conform to custom and to avoid the unconventional than the subjects with no special education teaching experience. The experienced teachers are seen as more stable and sincere, and tend to achieve in settings where conformance is a positive behavior (Edwards, 1959i Gough, 1969). Since there are only three variables that differ between these two groups, it can be concluded that the personality characteristics of these two groups are quite similar. The group that had teaching experience may be older than the group without experience, and this could account for the differences that were found. The results of this study are consistent with some research studies reviewed in Chapter II, and not with others. Garrison and Scott (1961) found that the personal needs (as measured by the EPPS) of special education students differed significantly from students in other areas of education. When the results of this author's research were interpreted it was found that the personal needs of the sample did not differ significantly from the mean of the inventory normative sample. Since the results were not compared to the results of other groups in education, no further comparisons can be made. Jones and Gottfried (1966) studied the relationship between psychological needs (as measured by the EPPS) and preference for teaching different types of exceptional children. They found significant differences between

PAGE 93

83 groups of subjects who expressed a preference for teaching children with different handicaps. The present study did not support those findings. This study gave only weak evidence that there exists differences in the psychological needs of special educators in different areas of specialization. Wakefield and Crowl (197*0 attempted to formulate an image of the ideal special education teacher. The EPPS variables considered most desirable for a special education teacher were Intraception, Nurturance, Endurance, and Achievement. The results of the present study indicated that this sample of special educators did not differ significantly from the norm on any of these variable measures. There may be initial agreement that these needs are desirable for a special education teacher, but there was no indication that this sample possessed those characteristics. Gottfried and Jones (196k) studied motivational factors associated with the choice of special education as a career. The internalized motives most often given were: (a) a desire to help others, and (b) the challenge of the field. The present research compliments the second finding. A challenging career would appeal to the subjects of this study, who were found to be aggressive and achievement oriented. Reid, Reid, Whorton, and Reichard (1972) administered the CPI to special education and nonspecial education majors.

PAGE 94

84 They found significant differences between the groups. This is consistent with the results of the present study. The subjects in the sample differed more than one standard deviation from the mean of the normative sample on five of the variable measures. There was no indication that the people who choose to educate emotionally disturbed children need to go through a special screening process, as suggested by Balow (1966). This is consistent with Osipow's (1968) conclusion that "in general, no data exist to suggest a specific relationship between psychopathology and career choice" (p. 177). Conclusions and Implications The primary purpose of this study was to generate an initial personal profile of special educators. Based on the results of the study, it was concluded that special educators tend to be seen as poised, spontaneous, and self-confident in personal and social interactions. They possess a strong sense of personal worth, and are demanding and aggressive. They have a definite capacity for independent thinking and action, and their achievement is facilitated in settings where autonomy and independence are seen as positive behaviors. They are disbelieving and distrustful in personal and social outlook, and intolerant of other people's social beliefs and attitudes. At the same time they are not concerned about how others react to them. In as much as the subjects can be considered

PAGE 95

representative of special educators as a group, these characteristics would be typical of them. The secondary purpose of the study was to determine whether or not there are any differences between special educators in five different areas of specialization. The results indicated that there are no significant differences in the psychological needs, personal values, or personality traits of the people who have chosen the education of mentally retarded, the emotionally disturbed, or learning disabled children as a career. It can be concluded, based on these results, that the choice of area of specialization is not determined by the personality characteristics of the special educator. Personality characteristics of special educators relate to many facets of the profession, including career choice, career satisfaction, recruitment, screening, teacher training, and teacher competence. It is possible that this study can contribute to a general picture of the characteristics of special educators as they relate to career choice. As stated by Zytowski (1970), "members of a given occupation tend to be more like each other and less like people not in that occupation" (p. 76). It is interesting to speculate whether or not the personality characteristics of members of a given occupation, in this case special education, were similar prior to the time they became a group, thus accounting for the similarity, or did they become like one another as a result of group membership.

PAGE 96

86 This profile of the personality characteristics of special educators could also be related to the training sequence. Their strong indication of self-reliance and independence would suggest that a training program that would recognize and reward their independence would encourage the greatest amount of achievement. On the other hand, the training process might have been the cause of group conformity, thus accounting for the high degree of independence and achievement of the group. Suggestions For Further Research It is possible that the personality profile generated by this study is not unique to the field of special education. Since all subjects were graduate students, this profile may be more representative of that group, than of special educators. In order to determine the answer to this question, another similar research project could be conducted that would include other groups for comparison purposes. Approximately one-half of the subjects had one or more years of special education teaching experience, and had returned to graduate school for more training. It is possible that the personality characteristics isolated in this study are traits needed for success in the field. It is generally thought that a special student needs a special teacher, and it might be the characteristics of self-confidence, independence, and self-centeredness that

PAGE 97

8? contribute to success in the field and satisfaction within the profession. This question also deserves further investigation. It would be interesting to investigate the relationship of personality characteristics of graduate students at the beginning of their training and at the end. If significant differences were found, it could be concluded that the training process caused some degree of conformity, resulting in a group of people who were "more like each other and less like people not in that occupation" (Zytowski, 1970, p. 76). This is perhaps the reason for the differences between the Master's and Post-Master's subjects. The knowledge of personality characteristics can also be related to the recruitment process. Special education as a profession has reached the stage that it no longer has to accept people simply to fill its ranks. People can be recruited whose characteristics are commensurate with those of successful people in the profession. For this purpose, a similar study could be conducted that included as subjects those individuals who had been chosen as successful special educators. Summary The objectives of this study werei (a) to generate an initial personality profile of people who have chosen special education as a profession, and (b) to determine whether or not there are any significant differences between

PAGE 98

88 the personality characteristics of special educators in different areas of specialization, in different degree level programs, of different ages, with a different number of years of teaching experience, and of both sexes. The subjects (N=112) were special education graduate students enrolled full-time at two state supported universities in Florida. Three paper-and-pencil inventories were completed by the subjects. They were the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, and the California Psychological Inventory. Analysis of variance was used to determine whether or not significant differences existed between the mean scores of any of the groups on any of the variable measures of the personality inventories. Discriminant function analysis was used to determine the relationship of the variables to each other, and their contribution to the discrimination between groups. Based on the results of the analysis, a general personality profile of special educators was developed. There were no significant differences between the subjects whose areas of specialization were Mental Retardation, Emotional Disturbance, and Learning Disabilities. There were significant differences between the subjects in different degree level programs, of different ages, with a different number of years of teaching experience, and of both sexes.

PAGE 99

APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIABLES OF THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE, THE ALLPORTVERNON -LIN DZ EY STUDY OF VALUES, AND THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY

PAGE 100

THE MANIFEST NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THE 15 EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE VARIABLES 1. ach Achievement i To do one's best, to be successful, to accomplish tasks requiring skill and effort, to be a recognized authority, to accomplish something of great significance, to do a difficult job well, to solve difficult problems and puzzles, to be able to do things better than others, to write a great novel or play. 2. def Deference i To get suggestions from others, to find out what others think, to follow instructions and do what is expected, to praise others, to tell others that they have done a good job, to accept the leadership of others, to read about great men, to conform to custom and avoid the unconventional, to let others make decisions. 3. ord Order i To have written work neat and organized, to make plans before starting on a difficult task, to have things organized, to keep things neat and orderly, to make advance plans when taking a trip, to organize details of work, to keep letters and files according to some system, to have meals organized and a definite time for eating, to have things arranged so that they run smoothly without change. exh Exhibition ! To say witty and clever things, to tell amusing jokes and stories, to talk about personal 90

PAGE 101

91 adventures and experiences, to have others notice and comment upon one's appearance, to say things just to see what effect it will have on others, to talk about personal achievements, to be the center of attention, to use words that others do not know the meaning of, to ask questions others cannot answer. 5. aut Autonomy ! To be able to come and go as desired, to say what one thinks about things, to be independent of others in making decisions, to feel free to do what one wants, to do things that are unconventional, to avoid situations where one is expected to conform, to do things without regard to what others may think, to criticize those in positions of authority, to avoid responsibilities and obligations. 6. aff Affliation t To be loyal to friends, to participate in friendly groups, to do things for friends, to form new friendships, to make as many friends as possible, to share things with friends, to do things with friends rather than alone, to form strong attachments, to write letters to friends. ?• int Int raceptiom To analyze one's motives and feelings, to observe others, to understand how others feel about problems, to put one's self in another's place, to judge people by why they do things rather than by what they do, to analyze the behavior of others, to analyze the motives of others, to predict how others will act.

PAGE 102

92 8. sue Succorance t To have others provide help when in trouble, to seek encouragement from others, to have others be kindly, to have others be sympathetic and understanding about personal problems, to receive a great deal of affection from others, to have others do favors cheerfully, to be helped by others when depressed, to have others feel sorry when one is sick, to have a fuss made over one when hurt. 9. dom Dominance ! To argue for one's point of view, to be a leader in groups to which one belongs, to be regarded by others as a leader, to be elected or appointed chairman of committees, to make group decisions, to settle arguments and disputes between others, to persuade and influence others to do what one wants, to supervise and direct the actions of others, to tell others how to do their jobs, 10. aba Abasement i To feel guilty when one does something wrong, to accept blame when things do not go right, to feel that personal pain and misery suffered does more good than harm, to feel the need for punishment for wrong doing, to feel better when giving in and avoiding a fight than when having one's own way, to feel the need for confession of errors, to feel depressed by inability to handle situations, to feel timid in the presence of superiors, to feel inferior to others in most respects. 11. nur Nurturance t To help friends when they are in trouble, to assist others less fortunate, to treat others

PAGE 103

93 with kindness and sympathy, to forgive others, to do small favors for others, to he generous with others, to sympathize with others who are hurt or sick, to show a great deal of affection toward others, to have others confide in one about personal problems. 12. chg Change » To do new and different things, to travel, to meet new people, to experience novelty and change in daily routine, to experiment and try new things, to eat in new and different places, to try new and different jobs, to move about the country and live in different places, to participate in new fads and fashions. 13. end Endurance t To keep at a job until it is finished, to complete any job undertaken, to work hard at a task, to keep at a puzzle or problem until it is solved, to work at a single job before taking on others, to stay up late working in order to get a job done, to put in long hours of work without distraction, to stick at a problem even though it may seem as if no progress is being made, to avoid being interrupted while at work. 1^. het Het erosexuality 1 To go out with members of the opposite sex, to engage in social activities with the opposite sex, to be in love with someone of the opposite sex, to kiss those of the opposite sex, to be regarded as physically attractive by those of the opposite sex, to participate in discussions about sex, to read books and plays involving sex, to listen to or to tell jokes involving sex, to become sexually excited.

PAGE 104

94 15. agg Aggression i To attack contrary points of view, to tell others what one thinks about them, to criticize others publicly, to make fun of others, to tell others off when disagreeing with them, to get revenge for insults, to become angry, to blame others when things go wrong, to read newspaper accounts of violence. Source i Edwards, 1959

PAGE 105

95 PERSONAL VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THE SIX STUDY OF VALUES VARIABLES 1. The Theoretical . The dominant interest of the theoretical man is the discovery of truth . In the pursuit of this goal he characteristically takes a "cognitive" attitude, one that looks for identities and differences i one that divests itself of judgments regarding the beauty of utility of objects, and seeks only to observe and to reason. Since the interests of the theoretical man are empirical, critical, and rational, he is necessarily an intellectualist, frequently a scientist or philosopher. His chief aim in life is to order and systematize his knowledge. 2. The Economic . The economic man is characteristically interested in what is useful . Based originally upon the satisfaction of bodily needs (self-preservation), the interest in utilities develops to embrace the practical affairs of the business world— the production, marketing, and consumption of goods, the elaboration of credit, and the accumulation of tangible wealth. This type is thoroughly "practical" and conforms well to the prevailing stereotype of the average American businessman. The economic attitude frequently comes into conflict with other values. The economic man wants education to be

PAGE 106

96 practical, and regards unapplied knowledge as waste. Great feats of engineering and application result from the demands economic men make upon science. The value of utility likewise conflicts with the aesthetic value, except when art serves commercial ends. In his personal life the economic man is likely to confuse luxury with beauty. In his relations with people he is more likely to be interested in surpassing them in wealth than in dominating them (political attitude) or in serving them (social attitude). In some cases the economic man may be said to make his religion the worship of Mammon. In other instances, however, he may have regard for the traditional God, but inclines to consider Him as the giver of good gifts, of wealth, prosperity, and other tangible blessings. 3. The Aesthetic . The aesthetic man sees his highest value in form and harmony . Each single experience is judged from the standpoint of grace, symmetry, or fitness. He regards life as a procession of events i each single impression is enjoyed for its own sake. He need not be a creative artist, nor need he be effetei he is aesthetic if he but finds his chief interest in the artistic episodes of life. The aesthetic attitude is, in a sense, diametrically opposed to the theoretical! the former is concerned with the diversity, and the latter with the identities of experience. The aesthetic man either chooses, with Keats, to consider truth as equivalent to beauty, or agrees with

PAGE 107

97 Mencken, that, "to make a thing charming is a million times more important than to make it true." In the economic sphere the aesthete sees the process of manufacturing, advertising, and trade as a wholesale destruction of the values most important to him. In social affairs he may be said to be interested in persons but not in the welfare of persons i he tends toward individualism and self-sufficiency. Aesthetic people often like the beautiful insignia of pomp and power, but oppose political activity when it makes for the repression of individuality. In the field of religion they are likely to confuse beauty with purer religious experience. 4. The Social . The highest value for this type is love of people. In the Study of Values it is the altruistic or philanthropic aspect of love that is measured. The social man prizes other persons as ends, and is therefore himself kind, sympathetic, and unselfish. He is likely to find the theoretical, economic, and aesthetic attitudes cold and inhuman. In contrast to the political type, the social man regards love as itself the only suitable form of human relationship. Spranger adds that in its purest form the social interest is selfless and tends to approach very closely to the religious attitude. 5. The Political . The political man is interested primarily in power . His activities are not necessarily within the narrow field of politics i but whatever his vocation, he betrays himself as a Machtmensch . Leaders

PAGE 108

98 in any field generally have high power value. Since competition and struggle play a large part in all life, many philosophers have seen power as the most universal and most fundamental of motives. There are, however, certain personalities in whom the desire for a direct expression of this motive is uppermost, who wish above all else for personal power, influence, and renown. 6. The Religious . The highest value of the religious man may be called unity . He is mystical, and seeks to comprehend the cosmos as a whole, to relate himself to its embracing totality. Spranger defines the religious man as one "whose mental structure is permanently directed to the creation of the highest and absolutely satisfying value experience." Some men of this type are "immanent mystics," that is, they find their religious experience in the affirmation of life and in active participation therein. A Faust with his zest and enthusiasm sees something divine in every event. The "transcendental mystic," on the other hand, seeks to unite himself with a higher reality by withdrawing from lifei he is the ascetic, and, like the holy men of India, finds the experience of unity through self-denial and meditation. In many individuals the negation and affirmation of life alternate to yield the greatest satisfaction. Sourcei Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1970

PAGE 109

99 E-t PP < M O K o o P s M W * > Q M W «< < H O O o to CO o X CO o Eh >H M C0 >< a Eh K H O 1-3 ft, < H O «< Woo ft T-i CO rt to c 4) V Sh co O O 0 CO P * o O P rH 1 Tt c CD 0) to O 3 ft T» C rt o> H © to n rt CO »h C © to h o o CO o> X> x; ttf o •H -P g Eh >> O 01 o« 0) TJ < rt C o to u © ft a> P C TJ C nt 0) U c at tn 3 CO to -< I o to -< © w •H o ft t«u at H C •tH »H CO 0) C P O • -H P W -P C rt o a> at U H at •H 6 TJ 3 P C 10 X H C0 W.i -co o +> at TJ ft at h to at • a) o c c as © TJ •••H C o c W) c c •H O TJ H O > ID c H tO X C O a> at at P rH l to at O Eh a> o c at c •H •8 a I 0>H (h u at CD C-H x! at o at C o ©-H to H B o tj » . »h P © • O-H O © PH C > O -H © -H a) P P «H at co a) •H «H to p, to p tO tH f-i -H to to SVH >> H I H Tt b is c 0) ^ a) P. to S-i at 0)P • > C P at CHtt-H « 3 Ch t) at co 3 c •H "O > c at at x: H to at at -H P TJ C C 0) at P P. Q> at to to > U at •h cu to p p ~ to c p © tt> W) c >-i P c © p c © c p, © > •H 10 -H © W) co W). •H 3 a> P © 'H © TJ +> tj at -h C © C -< tl r fl'f|.p|rt'H 8 o rH CO o •H P TJ C C I P 3 O C TJ H C at 4) > TJ TJ C « a> )0+» ftP-H tO e o u J-H © P ^ x: to (h to © to © © P ~p u c -TJ (0 -H OH — •H »H W) tiD TJ p a c c c © -H-H © X © M P rH p q x © rH -HO ft 3 CO C O -< T) © P rH Tt rH (~l © © -H » O £ o * © © TJ © C-H © rH •H >> B n © • © © 0)-H PC© c o •H c © J-< to o © Q> •H 0) o to © ft o © Eh O © W 3 O P © • P CM CO to P o rH C TJ Cd w 0) > 0 •H -C O nJ h o TJ c •H U C O © 5 3 p p •H O O © © ft w © >H O Si 0) •H rH © Tt C 3 x: o •H to 3 P CO & 01 P 0) rH -P TJ S3 © p tt) O-HH ft © ^ B U PTJ ©©PC P ft© rt o p to P -TJ C H C 3 © 0) P o o CO © rt C •H •— © W) P c •H to M © © © •rH — CO CO 3 © I 3 «M rH © a> o i !h 3 O O •H CO , +» 0) O U © TJ 10 C rt rt T3 tt) . C ft© ©OP o to CO c o •H p © o o to a> U H © rt p c c Jh tt) C rt tn h x: p i © CUJ P > 3 © — -H 10 •r-t Wl 10 3 C W ttf cr-H at c §ft-H © rH tO TJ P © © C c o •H P rt at u C rt 3 TJ tt) TJ C Tt XI C © c o rt > rt C o o rt p — tt) © tt) Tt TJ > . 3 •H MP ©C-H tO -H P H © P ex* a TJ H rt ? , M X> > 3 © C •< m rt-H Tt tt) O C tt> 3 H Tt «H C c © •H CO >> C rH O U-H © P > O °g Tt ^ C rt © • a> u to H © C X> XJ O •H P -H P O C © -H ? UP O I I -H P O O 3-H Eh O P (4 >»o ftp d) c O rH CO P 6 c E rt O © rt © ft 6 P rt •H © O ftO O © >» W P •H © >>P ttf)> CO c tt) • TJ CH P O © cvh W) ft I Tt -H C P rt © c ••H CO •rH u ft © U X) © ft co E rt o O TJ c c° rt c •H P C © 3 P C 4) c •H O tUJ p 3 O to rt (h i rt -H O C -H 1h X H -P O P

PAGE 110

100 p c c CD 0) .H •HH at P P«P at E fn Pt-H 0) to u qTxJ § p c at 3 xj fa c o> • at xj xj •H -H • (Of 3 ® M (0 •P P rH at (0 H fn OI.H QUO P I rt •H H iH 0) • «0 Q to at hO c G-H •H 0)H P rf • G hO CO-H C at hD-H •H hfl xj tH xj o 3 c -<-s XJ GxJ c o c •H a) (0 •H iH a at at ih M XJ at c P«H C-H XJ •H H +* 0) ho c •H o o C 3 a> co oa at CO Sh m A o p H O qj a) •H to P. to CO at • o Eh c >>-H P I G •H P XJ C *H 0 at > 6 --H •HHP at at • E 3 •h o at P p o HOP, o c to CO 3 a> o > $h-H o to ho w •H Ot h ft x c a> at H o a> U 3 > at p •H CO «H at at h ; h XJ 3 itO C P at at a> i i at >» XJ to at i . at h > .CD •H H CO at C to o at P at > U 01 -H C P a> a> O > -H o c 3 o o* . o H XJ at C u a> at •H rH XJ P o at hO x: XJ P G a> a> XJ to c hflxJ at G G •h at C rH o a> ~.h at at •»-> O •H (0 toD XJ to C XJ C at -h G at P c to •H P to a> a> > u •h at to p at P W)rH C >H -H h 3 at to bOP rS S P UD at (0 C hD-H C o Vh to at o at c at p xx c at jc p at o o u XJ C 3 O XJ C • at to % c at c p at P o P W rH at.H at u at • XJ P o o C at C o O P O o •h at at o to c I at U at U xj at +-> o c rH P ft, W> — at o o p c to at •H -H at to at i O W at ta «J-H W £ CO C B) [OH at at at tio to ^ c0 at O P to hoxt P C at 3'H ^ o xj at C P • at C p E at C at o at xj i h0 «H •H -rH rH XJ 01 rH at 10 at +> p p XJ H £ at ho i . CVi >1«H rH rH CO at H 10 tO at at to XJ to c o at P at to o at C at XJ XJ at c-h . > at at >> at xj rH x: at p to w at etl 3 P, to at •H rH at . at rH to c 3 o O «H B) -H P 3 P C o 3 at •h at > P o C •h o P o E XJ at u XJ C at c » * at o P •H jC P hi) at 3 ho o O XJ rH P o P c at -h XJ XJ C at at P o c o •H P •H -t-> 10 IQ C C at o «M o at xj to o i at at H XJ XJ *> C c to at at XJ • in • q U-h co >> at i at at +> rH rH px: c at p rH P -H > P at >> at -H 3 £ tH-H at +j hO > o C 3 •H XJ XJ to C o •h at tH p, • tn to ho at 3 p o C-H at +j xj •H -p O E •h a) p at .at hOP H U fn-H at at p C rH at w at to rH P to at C hi) % C O •H 3 CO rH P at -h tH to o at •h xJ P C o at at M at tn jKi o at 3t W P •H rH •H XI H CO c O P. to CO at at 0C 3 rH at p •H at c c at X P O 0] o P * CO C o at-H at . i c xJ 3 at tn -H « rH +> at >>xj «h -h xj at n c C P, C > at at -h to 3 -H rH 03 « hO . CO rH -at c co a) 3 >>h-h at p< xj p at -h xj s o at P P o at 6 hO CO rH C at at -at C at xj — o h o hp ta C-H at XJ C E at co 3 c u p at p -h at at h OJXJ > Pi fi rH E U at ho o •H >> O tn i r-i P XJ P XJ >i o p •H CO rH C o w tn O) p •H P •H CO C O P >> CO -H •H CO XJ P. CO c co at a] at u U ho . o XJ »tn a> rH P-H O 3 «H .-H O HH H 3 at at P «H P C at o at o on E tn at 3 XJ O XJ C w c at at at U rH » at hO <~ P O c xj c q at c -h t
PAGE 111

101 I U C O •H X ftX O 3 p CO to G •H Xt C 0) xj U o co cd C p cd crt P In --H • a> -rH O U)X CD C at xt o Xt »h C xt a) c ft at cd TJH C 3 3«H O P C O B xt •H C mi at (0 • a! C o XJ -H C P at h X — -H C u O •H at x cd X »h •H a> X P •P CO XJ f a> c o — H CO P CO CD P O C K co CD +> o Eh G O •H P etf x u I -H P c » •H XJ 3 I P co 0) to --PX a> >>-h •H XJ -P +» H H H O id at co u a> 3 •H X 3 >>t XJ O +» P -H O at xt > to a) b c P Ctl rH o o ctJ >H O o CO CO-H XJ • C 00 -H cdxJ • CXJ »-H 0) >> c -P CD-H •H X Rt t-i -P -P CO 3 O •H Sh •P O a> m > O XJ CO . 2 3 P P O CO CO •h a> U XJ XJ a> o c (A 6 cd H •H s ft as CO XJ cd 1 U o H X *ri ti 2 C CO o 9 at o -Xt « C rH at X at . p XJ •h at o u x o> a> -p C • « XJ o <0 t-H (0 tuO at (X) at XJ C at H — a> at P > •H (0 P at tx o — CO XJ 10 co at u bo a> 1 P4 a> > rH •H r^ co at rH P 3 -H ft tn •H £> •H c: •H c 3 O) CO H t«a tJ •H C co at at JC © ft t-t a 3 0) CO t-i at a> a> > H o ft o o u 4-> c o o XJ I c >> at at P rH .h • Xt 3 rH > CO C W) O -H CO at © t* co a> PrH C 3 xl «> 1 c 0) 1 . «> C0 xi ft «u 6 t-4 •H CD -P £ C O CD 5h U CO P >>XJ *rt ^ O C BH co at at o cd o co 3 xJ to C/l CD O 1 C CD CO CD O CD XJ • CO Xt >H Jh C o at at p XJ C xt C ft-H XJ at >>XJ C p cd at Sxj p b 1 -OS PrH 3 U C at CD Cm P ? ft (0 P CO O X w> u „ S » 3 C-H HOOHffl Ot rH X *> o co p x -p CO u CD O X P XJ O G at M O P cd a> o rH CO at at §) CO Xt-rH 3 XJ •<-» » — CO * W) at OCH m -H t-t XJ 5-4 (4 CD C al-H > al c +» o 0) rl m 3 XJ O C •H at O XJ CD C XJ id C O r| O rH rH P 3 3 > co at CO tx CO 3 at at C W * ft-rt c •H > CD •H H O CO u 0) ft O X Eh P •H C o to 5-. ft © o c at U a> r-J O P — >> «H O -H EH P g • CD O XJ rH .H at •H • O c«D o • C CO 4> • P-rl o C -P o a> -p at g at • XJ 13 a> 3 c > -o at H I CO C CO tO 0 h CD C CD ftaJX 1 ^ XJ o C •H at rH >iXJ 3 CD rH at O* -PrH O W) C at M c-H ja x rH -H 5^ at ^1 W) CD ECO S »H -H O X CO Xt "H p x c at • at x 5-i CO C CO H P CO 0 5-i CD at a> co -P « w rH at C W)H -X -H C o rH at xJ H 3 C XJ CO -«h >,at <» •H P CD rH «H Jh C O H ~ m ft at 5-t tti P at )H 3 3 C > CD CD O -P CD P rH CO O 3 XJ O CD OJH C P »H rH «H Ot c XJ *rH CD 3 P Jh «n C X P at CO C P 0) CO » CO -H CO CD XJ 3 Jh O XJ •H XJ C P C at 3 cd at rH o o «H O -00 XJ o I c I o «H O XH P CD CD •H 10 rH * P W)P CO C-H ft-H rH H CD X CD rH W) CD P at t? t-. p •H X -CD •H >>X C at to H » at xt C at CO xt CD CD c CD CO X 5h P CD X X P P o •H * «H O XJ CD CO 11 cd at O £ I at 1 ft « o o >• cd co to 4Kt 0 CO CO to c • •H at C h p P -rl CD £ at to -MX cd >H C rH at p »-h 3 e to to ft o «m at 0 to ftX 1 -P rH P XJ O 3 CD-H C O o X 3k at •H CO u CD ft

PAGE 112

s to © O -H 01 O XJ 0) © i— I > XI -H © rt u c £ O g •H P a> w a> i h c SO) p H -H a> Xt * • H w ra 3 3 rt o Cad) 3 XJ >> C T> o c o cd P . CXJ •H +» H p © in (0 rt to P XJ o C -H © rH ~ c rH O 3 O x> at C I a> o u H o P CD ^©H P © at •H t-i 3 rH MX) at tt>.H C XJ P X! at I XI >> W P a> c 0) E •H © -a P-H w © c P at 6 at o o x; •h o • XJ «H CM C X rH-H * H I 3 © p p oca p h rt p «rt o • ft-n P p at » to In ©-H rH rH 0) at O © c u •H « CO "CJ a> c H « at xi o> Ol rH * XI XI >> C at XJ ©•h at ftrH 3 o a> p P fn to to xi a> o co B 5 c O © tH ftx: o> CD P P 0) +> Q) r» o at x: _ p ftp TJ C XJ~ Jh at C e o O C s oi at W) a> xT C 3 O CD f~3 Xi at XJ M)XJ o ceo •h at to) >> o c a> •H o •H rH rH a> p c XJ c at rH at •rl P c a) P o Ph p c cu E CD a> •H x: o ««! o 01 i p at U £ C « at O XJ •H C C 3 > C rH — H «H 0) (0 to •at $-i xJ to at Sh O at to o ^ at cm X! CP o O P at co 0) U 3 O x» Xt 3 P CO 3 P P oi to 3 01 -H o> S tn-H H ft to at to C u s 01 at «m a) •H-H tH > p a> C P P .H 0) o o co to •H^ tn x: co o OOP at C o *»« at at S ch x; o •rH x: 5 O tH •< O 0) CO •H C Xi O O •H at p at co > P •H at p P O-H E rH •H XJ O C at at ch i C O O CO > M P tO.H x; to * o ft bo C at •H P w P-H CD to 0) o . >> C -H C at >• at E at m x; CO© H 01 CD — $H O tH 0) tH XJ O CD CD C. ft N O «H c at X) So c Jh at o CD H • CO Xt P rH at C Xt ft © at at h P o o to > •H P at l o o at 3 P o CD CO to at 3 3 0 P •H O $H CD P rH 01 rH 3 OH XJ P H C C « •H 'H P c c •H 3 P rH C at o > XJ C at XJ C at ft at p o >* E P o •H > > © •H -H P XJ O O at at >j i U E £8 CO 'J o •H p 3 XJ XJ at C C o at at XJ C at P >>-H • P 01 W) H C C CD > H (0 CO H E at xt Xt o 3 to tO rH 3 H O 3 •H XI tH o X >H p 3 H I XJ C a XJ >P at -h © •H P tn > C © © P P XJ C C -H -H © E 0 © -~» tO •H © tn X! O O O C P © © O -'XJ at C «H -H © «< ft© © 01 • XJ o E o C o p 3 © > © •H O at © P CC P = -H E rH •H XJ O c © © •H ft © p © x: p xt © © C Xt 01 -H © >iXJ > C C-H © © P W)xj c c XJ c © o tH P 01 © o tn O © t-i 3 P i W)-H • C rH t«0.H © C © tH Xt I -» o •H XJ tH C © © ft 3 >> to P •H ay HX> > ©

PAGE 113

VJ I I 1 I tuo >> o C I 10 H -H O 0 a> a & u p a SO SO P •o CO to to to C CBO O C -H rH O © -P g • a> p o to -a e >h 3 «2 +? o «c c •H W) 3 « P P C 3-H P at o C o cd to c as o •H T3 -P C O at iH-H C 0> O to so •H C xt W)rH C CD H CO 0) P O XI >>at C P rH cd •rH P I •H cd o a> a> P CO >> at O P q> P P 4* £ C 3 a rH a> -H at P rH o 3 Cd KJ -H T3 O G •H P c •H a> . o p xt cd p i a> >>a>rH c HH O Or-tXX-ri C u a> o cd • 4> bO-P'H +5 th o tt -rH ^ at P s s I W) at o 3 W) o c •H p, «pH P O CO p p c SCO o • at C P C) * -P 3 P C « 0) o C a> ca •H H «H «tt O P K Sh -p CD rH H a> x p So c •H -H T3 at C at W) C a) •H > O -H at » rH -H 10 U > at ~ CD rH C MP t-i O C CO CD-H H (h e cd 3P CO -H CO rH at a) 5 T3 > p o c 6 »£ H O CD O 3 P T3 X) t3 C CO C at at at o P CU p p & 5*2 O C co H at S to s W) o o C P •H CU -O P c o +> CD > •H « CO CO C -a o a> p CD to c CD U U CD CU p P -H -H P CO • 3 CD O at P CD XJ rH C P at at o p U C C CD at 3 P rH O «H CO cd C cd E CU CO p o p C Cti CO Xt 3 * >> c o 5 rH CD -H trl Orl Ot CO rH • P cd cu p CU o u CD P CO P to U CU > rH txD cd C •H H O CD O p >> CD S •H CD P CO M 4> P P O cm O CO CU o g 0) •H (H CD CD P C cd I o o XI at to E o •H P O •H CO CD • tx CO P C ta-H cd cd rH t-i 3 P U CO I u a w x< xt c o cd c at > xi cd ^ rH cd * cd CO 3 o •H P cd o 3 rH t>C at o o -rH Ch CO x> 3 o W) OP? H P -H h CD o --P 6P CD 10 p 3 n cd P >> at U Ch cd-h m P CD Xt CD ? Cd -H P -H E $H CO o at P Xt rH £ at at -h xt P C C at p CD P Jh Si cd e 3 'tn O O CD P p P to P 3 >»o rH 6. • • CD >i C > P O O-H -H U P UL O -H C P xt 'H +> at CD CD pj m PP at P •H O •H P C I I rH O P Eh «H cd O P >> P •H rH •H p •rH X CD rH > C rH P •H Ch -h O •H > at P CD P O rH to at CD O P O CO cd P C at c •H co P cd P to

PAGE 114

I 0 I ©P S > Cd-H CO +> a o 73 ff{ o> a . CO a> a CH •H +» iH CO 73 cd o XT I 73 3 © O U at co XS at 73 € C id do C CO •H 3 +» O O CO W)-H 3 •P* +> X> 3-H O 0.0 I c U -H O px: +» p+> o o-h © 73 -H C WJ-O at C •H 73 ©rH c > at at •h a> +» x> +» cd £ H C 3 3 -H rH P. X> -H O C-H ~ at +» a) s "i is W) C Xi C 3 M -P O l 6 l O 73 © c -o at C c C O O >>-H •h at -P fH O o © © at U rH xj x: © C P M at »H M C C P at •h C ^ © C'H C •H P O x: at-H P P. CO I o >>fc4 6h P © •H P «Cfi >>-H -H +» H •H 3 "H COO •H CO C at >> co C © © x: © o © O © at •H H P P at C bfl •H © C O t»D'H © S-, to » © PrH > P3 © S © at x: P C at o-h p C co H bp C •H W) > 73 © C at C

PAGE 115

APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 116

QUESTIONNAIRE Social Security #t (Your S.S.# is requested on this questionnaire and the inventories for "bookkeeping" purposes. Your scores will not be divulged to anyone. ) Please circle the answer to the following questions i Agei 1) 20-2** Sext 1) female 2) 25-29 2) male 3) 30-39 k) ko and above University i 1) University of Florida 2) Florida State University Degree level of present program t 1) Masters 2) Specialist 3) Doctorate Area of specialization of present programi 1 ) mental retardation 2) emotional disturbance/behavior disorders 3) learning disabilities k) blind and partially sighted 5) special education administration Please supply the following information where applicable! College attended for Bachelors degree i Major « Degree datei College attended for Masters degree i Major « Degree datet College attended for Specialist degree i Major i Degree datet Number of years employed in the field of Special Education! Teachings Dates i Administration! Dates i Other! Dates i 106

PAGE 117

REFERENCES

PAGE 118

REFERENCES Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E. , & Lindzey, G. Study of Values manual . Atlanta i Houghton Mifflin, 19?0. Balow, B. A program of preparation for teachers of disturbed children. Exceptional Children . 1966, ^2, 455Bernard, V. W. Teacher education in mental health from the point of view of the psychiatrist. In M. Krugman (Ed.), Orthopsychiatry and the schools . New Yorki American Orthopsychiatry Association, 1958. Biber, B. Teacher education in mental health from the point of view of the educator. In M. Krugman (Ed.), Orthopsychiatry and the schools . New Yorki American Orthopsychiatry Association, 1958. Biddle, B., & Ellena, W. (Eds.) Contemporary research on teacher effectiveness . New Yorki Holt, Rinehart. & Winston, 1964. Bower, E. M. , & Greenfield, S. Disturbed teachers whose credentials were revoked. Psychology in the Schools. 1973, 10, 54-60. 1 Bowers, N. , & Soar, R. Studies of human relations in the teaching-learning process . Chapel HilTi University of North Carolina, 1961. Burrello, L. C, & Sage, D. A behavior preference inventory for special education administrators. Exceptional Children . 1971, 27, 365-369. Caskey, 0. L. , & Lutz, S. Special education as a vocational choicei Influences and values. Exceptional Children. 1975, 41, 332-33^. Dobson, J. Predicting and evaluating student teacher behavior. Exceptional Children . 1972, 21t 29-35. Ebel, R. L. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of educational research. Londoni MacMillian, 1969. 108

PAGE 119

109 Edwards, A. L. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule manual (Rev. ed. ) . New Yorki The Psychological Corporation, 1959. Flanders, N. Teacher influence! Pupil attitudes and achievement . Washington, D.C.i U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, i960. Gage, N. L. (Ed.) Handbook of researc h on teaching . Chicago 1 Rand McNally, 1963. Garrison, K. C, & Scott, M. H. A comparison of the personal needs of college students preparing to teach in different teaching areas. Educational and Psy chological Measurement . 1961, 21, 955-964. Getzels, J. W. , & Jackson, P. W. The teacher's personality and characteristics. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching . Chicago 1 Rand McNally, 1963. Gottfried, N. W., & Jones, R. L. Career choice factors in special education. Exceptional Children . 1964, 30, 218-223. Gough, H. G. California Psychological Inventory manual . Palo Alto, Calif. 1 Consulting Psychologist Press, 1969. Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. Handbook in research and evaluation . San Diego, Calif.: Robert R. Knapp, 1971. Jansen, M. , Jensen, P., & Mylov, P. Teacher characteristics and other factors affecting classroom interaction and teaching behavior. International Review of Education . 1972, 18, 529-537. Jones, R. L. Research on the special education teacher and special education teaching. Exceptiona l Children. 1966, 21. 251-257. Jones, R. L., & Gottfried, N. W. Psychological needs and preferences for teaching exceptional children. Exceptional Children . 1966, 32, 313-321. Krugman, M. (Ed.) Orthopsychiatry and the schools . New York t American Orthopsychiatry Association, 1958. Nie, N. H. t Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner , K. , & Bent, D. H. Statistical package for the social sciences . New Yorki McGraw-Hill, 1975.

PAGE 120

110 Osipow, S. H. Theories of career development . New Yorki Appl eton-C entury-Crofts, 1968. Reid, W. R., Reid, B. A., Whorton, J. E. , & Reichard, C. L. An experimental special education program for college freshmen. Journal of Special Education , 1972, 6, 127133. Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. Measures of social psy chological attitude . Ann Arbor, Mich. t The Institute for Social Research, 1973. Rudolf f, J. S. Descriptive profiles of teachers of exceptional and nonexceptional children with implications for recruitment. Journal of Educational Research . 1969, §1, 130-135. Ryans, D. Characteristics of teachers . Washington, D.C.i American Council on Education, i960. Scheuer, A. L. The relationship between personal attributes and effectiveness in teachers of the emotionally disturbed. Exceptional Children . 1971, 21, 723-732. Smith, B. Research in teacher education! A symposium . New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1971. Stringer, L. A normative study of academic progress in elementary school children . Clayton. Missouri 1 StT Louis County Health Department, 1961. Wakefield, W. M. , & Crowl, T. K. Personality characteristics of special educators. The Journal of Experimental Edu cation . 197^. f£2, 87-89. White, R. Teacher education 1 The effects of teacher personality variables as measured by the achievement of mentally retarded students. Education and Training o f the Mentally Retarded . 1970, 194-202. Wilk, M. , & Edson, P. Prediction and performance. Journal of Teacher Education . 1963, 14, 308-317. Zytowski, D. G. The influence of psychological factors upon vocational development ^ Boston t Houghton Mifflin,

PAGE 121

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Pamela Vortigern Cochrane was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She grew up in Norwood, Pennsylvania, where she attended the public schools. She graduated from Interboro High School in 196^. She attended Wilson College, in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, from 1964 to 1968. She graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree, with a major in psychology, and a minor in sociology. After two years of work and travel, she enrolled as a graduate student in the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida. She graduated in 1971, with a Master of Education degree. Her area of specialization was the education of the emotionally disturbed. Upon graduation she accepted a position as a special education teacher in the Jefferson County, Colorado, public school system. She taught emotionally disturbed and behavior disordered elementary school children from 1971 through 1973. In 1972 Miss Cochrane enrolled in the doctoral program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida. She graduated with a Doctor of Philosophy degree in 1975. Her area of specialization was the education of 111

PAGE 122

112 the emotionally disturbed, and her minor was educational administration.

PAGE 123

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. William R. Reid, 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. Cunningham 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. >h jT, Kimbrough " Ralpl Profes'sor of Education 7 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. Cary J6. R el chard / Associate Professor of Education

PAGE 124

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 . ratoes E. Whorton /Associate Professor of Education 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. December, 1975 6J.IL4 A /fled Dean, College to? Education Dean, Graduate School